Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Thing is the financial report isn not a "in-universe perspective" and is in fact a legal document.

It's a shareholders report that simplifies some information to convey the simplified finance summaries to the shareholders. It's not an in-depth legal document outlining all of GW's IP elements and legal entities.

Heck the document often doesn't even split profits and sales down to specific models or groupings and keeps things at a very general "overview" level.


Again no one is saying that GW doesn't have "two universes" under their own IP properties. We are just saying that they generally have not and likely don't just straight out give a licence for "Warhammer 40K" that includes everything in that universe setting in one go. Not sure some agreements might end up like that, but you can bet it would be broken down into separate units.

Licensing can be weird.

To look at Rings of Power and Amazon, they did that without rights to the Silmarilion (which IIRC nobody has) just the footnotes and the appendices of the LoTR books. So despite telling stories that are fleshed out in that book, there are names they cannot drop because they don’t have the rights.

Another example is Marvel and x-men/spiderman/fantastic4. Same universe, but they were carved off and another entity given the rights to do stuff with them.

If GW wanted to parse out certain parts of their IP. Like a certain trilogy of books for adaptation. Anything not explicitly covered in the agreement would be hands off.

We’ll see how open a sandbox Amazon has to play in, but it is not necessarily the whole universe.

chaos0xomega wrote:
What stuns me is how widely accepted such works of absolute and obvious fiction are. I know the community comes from all walks of life, but I would expect that there are enough people out there who work corporate jobs that would look at it and go "guys, this isn't really how the real world works" to call it into question before it reached the level of critical mass that we are even discussing the possibility of it being real. You wouldn't even really need to be working at a high level corporate job to know this, like its something that anyone whos worked professionally for a big business for longer than maybe 2-3 years would probably have enough of an inkling about to know that it was a load of bull.

a lot of people have debunked it as fake, or real thing without any consequences except for the exec who will have another training on how things work

so I don't know where it got big as I have seen nothing else but "this is fake as contracts don't work that way"

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Thing is the financial report isn not a "in-universe perspective" and is in fact a legal document.

That document does not list there being a single license called "Warhammer 40,000" that consists of 40k, the Horus Heresy, Necromunda etc rights bundled together as you're making out.

Again, thats not how licensing *works*. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. It is not, as you seem to believe, a supermarket where there are pre-packaged licenses sitting on the shelf and you can go push your shopping cart and put whatever you want into a basket and check out and have clearly defined ready to go whatevers when you get home.

There is not a defined list of licenses that exist and can be given out, they are essentially mutable and bespoke ad hoc concepts give out on a case by case basis subject to negotiation and determination between the licensor and licensee. GW can issue a single license covering the entirety of its IP across all brands, franchises, and universes. GW can issue a single license cover only one of its universes. GW can issue a single license covering only one of its games within one of those universes. GW can issue a single license covering only one of the factions within one of those games within one of those universes. GW can issue a single license covering only a single character from one of the factions within one of those games within one of those universes. GW can issue a single license covering only a single novel about one of the characters from one of the factions from one of those universes. GW can issue a single license which includes everything except a single character. GW can issue a single license which includes everything except a single book. Said license can apply only to t-shirts, or only to action figures, or only to coloring books, or only to video games. They can be limited to video games on a specific platform/console/system, or only video games of a specific genre, or video games under a specific project budget, or of a specific style, or of a specific setting or character or storyline. They can be literally whatever.

GW can issue whatever fething single license they want, because the terms and conditions and limitations and extents of any single license are subject to negotiation between the parties at the time the license is agreed to, and often well after its agreed to as well as there is often some degree of crossover between licenses, especially when it comes to works of fiction (Are Chaos Daemons part of the 40k license or Age of Sigmar/Warhammer Fantasy license? Does a license for Age of Sigmar include rights to reference and portray The End Times, or would that be applicable under a separate license? Does a 40k license include the right to portray any of the primarchs or is that part of a Horus Heresy license only? Which license do I need if I want to include a portrayal of the end of the Scouring and the formation of the Codex Astartes and Second Founding, etc?). Those specific terms often need to be negotiated or determined over time because its impossible to know about every weird corner case or weird situation - hence why licensor review and approval processes typically exist before you can publish anything at all involving a licensed property.

The financial report is very clear that GW divides its IP into two "universes" - one is Warhammer 40k, Necromunda, Horus Heresy, etc. The other is Age of Sigmar, Blood Bowl, and The Old World. This is a published statement of material fact on the public record - everything in a published financial report from a publicly traded company needs to be materially true statement, otherwise GW is essentially lying to its shareholders and can be prosecuted for fraud. If they make a statement declaring that their IP is categorized into two universes, that is a materially true statement reflecting the manner in which they organize and assess the business management of their intellectual property. That means that they consider these to be the two legally distinct "big umbrellas" around which they define their IP, whether its for licensing reasons, financial reporting, business planning or whatever doesn't really matter. That doesn't mean that they can only issue a license for these two universes, they are free to do whatever they want with it, but the point is that that is how they have structured, categorize, and manage their IP for the purposes of business operations.

The press releases and investor notifications that GW puts out through its investor portal are also published statements of material fact on the public record - they include investor guidance in them (hence why this press release indicates "The Company makes no change to its forecast for the 53 week period ending 2 June 2024."). Publishing false or misleading information in them could have legal consequences for GW in them. Knowing as we do that GW categorizes its IP into two fictional universes, one scifi and one fantasy, as they have indicated in the last several half-year and full-year reports, and that GW has announced that there is a deal to produce film and television in one of those "universes", with an option on the other "universe", GW could find themselves in a lot of trouble if a major investor took these statements to mean something other than what could be inferred using the consistent language that GW has otherwise used across its investor communications. If I, as an investor, am led to believe that Horus Heresy is a part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe based on GWs previous statements, and that the Amazon licensing deal includes production of Horus Heresy content owing to it being part of that same "universe" per aforementioned statements, and I make an investment into Games Workshop under the belief that a forthcoming Horus Heresy production will be extremely profitable to the company (and by extension myself) on that basis, and then discover that they were using confusing nomenclature and language and that Horus Heresy was never included in the licensing deal, I could then pursue Games Workshop for financial damages for making false or misleading statements that misrepresented statements of material fact which caused me to make investments under false beliefs of its potential future business activities.


All of that is to say that, yes, a license to produce content in the warhammer fantasy "universe" could very well be inclusive of Age of Sigmar. I'm sorry if you're one of those with a chip on their shoulder that thinks AoS ruined your childhood and looks to whatever arbitrary and vague straw you can grasp on to in an effort to try to "prove" that AoS is failing and will be shitcanned in preference of what you perceive to be a superior franchise or whatever, but the world of licensing is not quite so black and white.

 kodos wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
What stuns me is how widely accepted such works of absolute and obvious fiction are. I know the community comes from all walks of life, but I would expect that there are enough people out there who work corporate jobs that would look at it and go "guys, this isn't really how the real world works" to call it into question before it reached the level of critical mass that we are even discussing the possibility of it being real. You wouldn't

 kodos wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
What stuns me is how widely accepted such works of absolute and obvious fiction are. I know the community comes from all walks of life, but I would expect that there are enough people out there who work corporate jobs that would look at it and go "guys, this isn't really how the real world works" to call it into question before it reached the level of critical mass that we are even discussing the possibility of it being real. You wouldn't even really need to be working at a high level corporate job to know this, like its something that anyone whos worked professionally for a big business for longer than maybe 2-3 years would probably have enough of an inkling about to know that it was a load of bull.

a lot of people have debunked it as fake, or real thing without any consequences except for the exec who will have another training on how things work
so I don't know where it got big as I have seen nothing else but "this is fake as contracts don't work that way"

Makes one of us. I've seen many buying into it as real and few denouncing it. even really need to be working at a high level corporate job to know this, like its something that anyone whos worked professionally for a big business for longer than maybe 2-3 years would probably have enough of an inkling about to know that it was a load of bull.

a lot of people have debunked it as fake, or real thing without any consequences except for the exec who will have another training on how things work
so I don't know where it got big as I have seen nothing else but "this is fake as contracts don't work that way"

Makes one of us. I've seen many buying into it as real and few denouncing it. Was actually surprised to see the majority (if not totality) of dakka denounce it as bs from the getgo, I think that makes us smarter than the average!

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Thing is the financial report isn not a "in-universe perspective" and is in fact a legal document.

That document does not list there being a single license called "Warhammer 40,000" that consists of 40k, the Horus Heresy, Necromunda etc rights bundled together as you're making out.

Again, thats not how licensing *works*. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. It is not, as you seem to believe, a supermarket where there are pre-packaged licenses sitting on the shelf and you can go push your shopping cart and put whatever you want into a basket and check out and have clearly defined ready to go whatevers when you get home.

There is not a defined list of licenses that exist and can be given out, they are essentially mutable and bespoke ad hoc concepts give out on a case by case basis subject to negotiation and determination between the licensor and licensee. GW can issue a single license covering the entirety of its IP across all brands, franchises, and universes. GW can issue a single license cover only one of its universes. GW can issue a single license covering only one of its games within one of those universes. GW can issue a single license covering only one of the factions within one of those games within one of those universes. GW can issue a single license covering only a single character from one of the factions within one of those games within one of those universes. GW can issue a single license covering only a single novel about one of the characters from one of the factions from one of those universes. GW can issue a single license which includes everything except a single character. GW can issue a single license which includes everything except a single book. Said license can apply only to t-shirts, or only to action figures, or only to coloring books, or only to video games. They can be limited to video games on a specific platform/console/system, or only video games of a specific genre, or video games under a specific project budget, or of a specific style, or of a specific setting or character or storyline. They can be literally whatever.

GW can issue whatever fething single license they want, because the terms and conditions and limitations and extents of any single license are subject to negotiation between the parties at the time the license is agreed to, and often well after its agreed to as well as there is often some degree of crossover between licenses, especially when it comes to works of fiction (Are Chaos Daemons part of the 40k license or Age of Sigmar/Warhammer Fantasy license? Does a license for Age of Sigmar include rights to reference and portray The End Times, or would that be applicable under a separate license? Does a 40k license include the right to portray any of the primarchs or is that part of a Horus Heresy license only? Which license do I need if I want to include a portrayal of the end of the Scouring and the formation of the Codex Astartes and Second Founding, etc?). Those specific terms often need to be negotiated or determined over time because its impossible to know about every weird corner case or weird situation - hence why licensor review and approval processes typically exist before you can publish anything at all involving a licensed property.

The financial report is very clear that GW divides its IP into two "universes" - one is Warhammer 40k, Necromunda, Horus Heresy, etc. The other is Age of Sigmar, Blood Bowl, and The Old World. This is a published statement of material fact on the public record - everything in a published financial report from a publicly traded company needs to be materially true statement, otherwise GW is essentially lying to its shareholders and can be prosecuted for fraud. If they make a statement declaring that their IP is categorized into two universes, that is a materially true statement reflecting the manner in which they organize and assess the business management of their intellectual property. That means that they consider these to be the two legally distinct "big umbrellas" around which they define their IP, whether its for licensing reasons, financial reporting, business planning or whatever doesn't really matter. That doesn't mean that they can only issue a license for these two universes, they are free to do whatever they want with it, but the point is that that is how they have structured, categorize, and manage their IP for the purposes of business operations.

The press releases and investor notifications that GW puts out through its investor portal are also published statements of material fact on the public record - they include investor guidance in them (hence why this press release indicates "The Company makes no change to its forecast for the 53 week period ending 2 June 2024.". Publishing false or misleading information in them could have legal consequences for GW in them. Knowing as we do that GW categorizes its IP into two fictional universes, one scifi and one fantasy, as they have indicated in the last several half-year and full-year reports, and that GW has announced that there is a deal to produce film and television in one of those "universes", with an option on the other "universe", GW could find themselves in a lot of trouble if a major investor took these statements to mean something other than what could be inferred using the consistent language that GW has otherwise used across its investor communications. If I, as an investor, am led to believe that Horus Heresy is a part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe based on GWs previous statements, and that the Amazon licensing deal includes production of Horus Heresy content owing to it being part of that same "universe" per aforementioned statements, and I make an investment into Games Workshop under the belief that a forthcoming Horus Heresy production will be extremely profitable to the company (and by extension myself) on that basis, and then discover that they were using confusing nomenclature and language and that Horus Heresy was never included in the licensing deal, I could then pursue Games Workshop for financial damages for making false or misleading statements that misrepresented statements of material fact which caused me to make investments under false beliefs of its potential future business activities.


All of that is to say that, yes, a license to produce content in the warhammer fantasy "universe" could very well be inclusive of Age of Sigmar. I'm sorry if you're one of those with a chip on their shoulder that thinks AoS ruined your childhood and looks to whatever arbitrary and vague straw you can grasp on to in an effort to try to "prove" that AoS is failing and will be shitcanned in preference of what you perceive to be a superior franchise or whatever, but the world of licensing is not quite so black and white.

You are the one making out that they've given Amazon the license for "Warhammer 40,000" consisting of everything to do with 40k, the Horus Heresy, Necromunda and all the rest based on just the mention of "Warhammer 40,000" despite that not being how licensing works or how the financial report describes things as being considered regardless of you misconstruing it to claim so.

Somehow in your very own post you acknowledge that they have 2 universes split up into multiple different things in the report:

>The financial report is very clear that GW divides its IP into two "universes" - one is Warhammer 40k, Necromunda, Horus Heresy, etc. The other is Age of Sigmar, Blood Bowl, and The Old World.

But then still go on on to claim that the report says things like "the Horus Heresy is a part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe" despite that not being what it says. It says their sci-fi setting encompasses Warhammer 40,000, Horus Heresy and Necromunda. Not Warhammer 40,000 encompass Warhammer 40,000, Horus Heresy and Necromunda as you're claiming. It does not mention some overall setting consisting of the lot that's labelled as "Warhammer 40,000" as you're trying to make out.

Someone mentioned Hasbro as someone who could buy-out GW.

Hasbro is in no position to buy-out anyone. They just laid off 20% of their workforce and are losing money in the Toy category like crazy. This is a big turnaround from the previous few years with revenue increasing over time. They are currently prime targets for M&A themselves.

There is some discussion about Hasbro spinning off Wizards of the Coast and selling them off. No idea how true that is. However, over the last few years revenue has been up and Wizards has been a flagship.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Makes one of us. I've seen many buying into it as real and few denouncing it. Was actually surprised to see the majority (if not totality) of dakka denounce it as bs from the getgo, I think that makes us smarter than the average!

or just much older so we already have had a chance to see such things for real

 Easy E wrote:
Someone mentioned Hasbro as someone who could buy-out GW.

Hasbro is in no position to buy-out anyone. They just laid off 20% of their workforce and are losing money in the Toy category like crazy. This is a big turnaround from the previous few years with revenue increasing over time. They are currently prime targets for M&A themselves.

There is some discussion about Hasbro spinning off Wizards of the Coast and selling them off. No idea how true that is. However, over the last few years revenue has been up and Wizards has been a flagship.

They wouldn't sell of Wizards, Magic is the only thing making them money. They're more likely to shift D&D, which is basically worthless to them.

 Easy E wrote:
Someone mentioned Hasbro as someone who could buy-out GW.

Hasbro is in no position to buy-out anyone. They just laid off 20% of their workforce and are losing money in the Toy category like crazy. This is a big turnaround from the previous few years with revenue increasing over time. They are currently prime targets for M&A themselves.

There is some discussion about Hasbro spinning off Wizards of the Coast and selling them off. No idea how true that is. However, over the last few years revenue has been up and Wizards has been a flagship.

If they spin off Wizards, they'll collapse within years or be consumed by another company that tries to turn them around. I do love watching companies do mad things like that in the name of 'shareholder value - although I was quite disappointed when Cadbury's sold off their drinks department to provide 'shareholder value' and then promptly made themselves small enough to be ripped apart by an American company while the government did nothing and lost one of the most culturally British companies.

GW don't split their IPs up into just two categories - 40k and Fantasy. They license very specific parts.

Cyanide Studio does not have the rights to Warhammer Fantasy. They have the rights to Blood Bowl. That is all they have the rights to. They cannot suddenly decide to make a general Warhammer Fantasy Battles game, or an Age of Sigmar game, or a Warcry game, or an Underworlds game, or a Trolls in the Pantry game, and so on.

Cyanide does have (or at least did have) the rights to Space Hulk, meaning they can make a Space Hulk game. They can't make a Horus Heresy game though because they have the rights to Space Hulk.

stratigo wrote:
HB's one of the people in your first post.

No I'm not.

What I'm not is a bleating fool who thinks that "Everything and everyone in 40k is evil!" because that's obviously stupid.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There are people that think Walter White is the protagonist.

He is. He's just not a heroic protagonist. Or even an anti-hero.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Thing is the financial report isn not a "in-universe perspective" and is in fact a legal document.

That document does not list there being a single license called "Warhammer 40,000" that consists of 40k, the Horus Heresy, Necromunda etc rights bundled together as you're making out.

Again, thats not how licensing *works*. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. It is not, as you seem to believe, a supermarket where there are pre-packaged licenses sitting on the shelf and you can go push your shopping cart and put whatever you want into a basket and check out and have clearly defined ready to go whatevers when you get home.

There is not a defined list of licenses that exist and can be given out, they are essentially mutable and bespoke ad hoc concepts give out on a case by case basis subject to negotiation and determination between the licensor and licensee. GW can issue a single license covering the entirety of its IP across all brands, franchises, and universes. GW can issue a single license cover only one of its universes. GW can issue a single license covering only one of its games within one of those universes. GW can issue a single license covering only one of the factions within one of those games within one of those universes. GW can issue a single license covering only a single character from one of the factions within one of those games within one of those universes. GW can issue a single license covering only a single novel about one of the characters from one of the factions from one of those universes. GW can issue a single license which includes everything except a single character. GW can issue a single license which includes everything except a single book. Said license can apply only to t-shirts, or only to action figures, or only to coloring books, or only to video games. They can be limited to video games on a specific platform/console/system, or only video games of a specific genre, or video games under a specific project budget, or of a specific style, or of a specific setting or character or storyline. They can be literally whatever.

GW can issue whatever fething single license they want, because the terms and conditions and limitations and extents of any single license are subject to negotiation between the parties at the time the license is agreed to, and often well after its agreed to as well as there is often some degree of crossover between licenses, especially when it comes to works of fiction (Are Chaos Daemons part of the 40k license or Age of Sigmar/Warhammer Fantasy license? Does a license for Age of Sigmar include rights to reference and portray The End Times, or would that be applicable under a separate license? Does a 40k license include the right to portray any of the primarchs or is that part of a Horus Heresy license only? Which license do I need if I want to include a portrayal of the end of the Scouring and the formation of the Codex Astartes and Second Founding, etc?). Those specific terms often need to be negotiated or determined over time because its impossible to know about every weird corner case or weird situation - hence why licensor review and approval processes typically exist before you can publish anything at all involving a licensed property.

The financial report is very clear that GW divides its IP into two "universes" - one is Warhammer 40k, Necromunda, Horus Heresy, etc. The other is Age of Sigmar, Blood Bowl, and The Old World. This is a published statement of material fact on the public record - everything in a published financial report from a publicly traded company needs to be materially true statement, otherwise GW is essentially lying to its shareholders and can be prosecuted for fraud. If they make a statement declaring that their IP is categorized into two universes, that is a materially true statement reflecting the manner in which they organize and assess the business management of their intellectual property. That means that they consider these to be the two legally distinct "big umbrellas" around which they define their IP, whether its for licensing reasons, financial reporting, business planning or whatever doesn't really matter. That doesn't mean that they can only issue a license for these two universes, they are free to do whatever they want with it, but the point is that that is how they have structured, categorize, and manage their IP for the purposes of business operations.

The press releases and investor notifications that GW puts out through its investor portal are also published statements of material fact on the public record - they include investor guidance in them (hence why this press release indicates "The Company makes no change to its forecast for the 53 week period ending 2 June 2024.". Publishing false or misleading information in them could have legal consequences for GW in them. Knowing as we do that GW categorizes its IP into two fictional universes, one scifi and one fantasy, as they have indicated in the last several half-year and full-year reports, and that GW has announced that there is a deal to produce film and television in one of those "universes", with an option on the other "universe", GW could find themselves in a lot of trouble if a major investor took these statements to mean something other than what could be inferred using the consistent language that GW has otherwise used across its investor communications. If I, as an investor, am led to believe that Horus Heresy is a part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe based on GWs previous statements, and that the Amazon licensing deal includes production of Horus Heresy content owing to it being part of that same "universe" per aforementioned statements, and I make an investment into Games Workshop under the belief that a forthcoming Horus Heresy production will be extremely profitable to the company (and by extension myself) on that basis, and then discover that they were using confusing nomenclature and language and that Horus Heresy was never included in the licensing deal, I could then pursue Games Workshop for financial damages for making false or misleading statements that misrepresented statements of material fact which caused me to make investments under false beliefs of its potential future business activities.


All of that is to say that, yes, a license to produce content in the warhammer fantasy "universe" could very well be inclusive of Age of Sigmar. I'm sorry if you're one of those with a chip on their shoulder that thinks AoS ruined your childhood and looks to whatever arbitrary and vague straw you can grasp on to in an effort to try to "prove" that AoS is failing and will be shitcanned in preference of what you perceive to be a superior franchise or whatever, but the world of licensing is not quite so black and white.

You are the one making out that they've given Amazon the license for "Warhammer 40,000" consisting of everything to do with 40k, the Horus Heresy, Necromunda and all the rest based on just the mention of "Warhammer 40,000" despite that not being how licensing works or how the financial report describes things as being considered regardless of you misconstruing it to claim so.

Somehow in your very own post you acknowledge that they have 2 universes split up into multiple different things in the report:

>The financial report is very clear that GW divides its IP into two "universes" - one is Warhammer 40k, Necromunda, Horus Heresy, etc. The other is Age of Sigmar, Blood Bowl, and The Old World.

But then still go on on to claim that the report says things like "the Horus Heresy is a part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe" despite that not being what it says. It says their sci-fi setting encompasses Warhammer 40,000, Horus Heresy and Necromunda. Not Warhammer 40,000 encompass Warhammer 40,000, Horus Heresy and Necromunda as you're claiming. It does not mention some overall setting consisting of the lot that's labelled as "Warhammer 40,000" as you're trying to make out.

They have two universes, what they refer to them as is irrelevant. GW licensed a *universe* to Amazon, with the option to license another *universe* to them. What they refer to those universes as is largely irrelevant, because it's clear that one of those is their scifi universe and the other is their fantasy universe. And it's clear that those universes are inclusive of the things you don't believe them to be, BECAUSE THEY ONLY HAVE TWO UNIVERSES AND THOSE UNIVERSES ARE BY DEFAULT INCLUSUVE OF THOSE PROPERTIES PER GWs OWN STATEMENTS.

There is not a licenseable "universe" that is only Warhammer 40,000 and does not also include Horus Heresy. There is not a licenseable "universe" that is only Warhammer Fantasy Battle and not also inclusive of Age of Sigmar. They did not license Amazon the Warhammer 40,000 and Warhammer Fantasy "brand", "line", "franchise" or any other such term which could be used to denote that Amazon reveived a license for Warhammer 40k exclusive of Necromunda and Horus Heresy, and has an option for Warhammer Fantasy exclusive of Age of Sigmar, Blood Bowl, and The Old World, etc. Instead they used a very specific nomenclature which they have in essence legally defined to mean a broader range of properties than you believe them to be.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
GW don't split their IPs up into just two categories - 40k and Fantasy. They license very specific parts.

Cyanide Studio does not have the rights to Warhammer Fantasy. They have the rights to Blood Bowl. That is all they have the rights to. They cannot suddenly decide to make a general Warhammer Fantasy Battles game, or an Age of Sigmar game, or a Warcry game, or an Underworlds game, or a Trolls in the Pantry game, and so on.

Cyanide does have (or at least did have) the rights to Space Hulk, meaning they can make a Space Hulk game. They can't make a Horus Heresy game though because they have the rights to Space Hulk.

stratigo wrote:
HB's one of the people in your first post.

No I'm not.

What I'm not is a bleating fool who thinks that "Everything and everyone in 40k is evil!" because that's obviously stupid.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There are people that think Walter White is the protagonist.

He is. He's just not a heroic protagonist. Or even an anti-hero.

They license whatever they want or need to license to satisfy themselves. If they and Amazzon were interested in licensing the totality of their IPs, then they would do so. If they and Amazon thought the scifi portion of their IPs was a home run, but the fantasy portion was on shaker ground, then the deal for that would look a lot like what they announced. If they only wanted to license two specific game lines worth of IP, then the deal might look similar, but they wouldn't be using the term "universe" which in internal use had been established very clearly to refer to more than just Warhammer 40,000/Warhammer Fantasy proper.

Here, by the way, is the ofgiciak press release of the Cyanide Blood Bowl license from way back when: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/games-workshop-grants-blood-bowl-licence-to-cyanide

You will note that it says "Blood Bowl fantasy football property" and not "Blood Bowl universe". There's a reason for that. Couldn't find one for the Space Hulk license, but I'm betting it didn't say they got a license for the "Space Hulk universe".

chaos0xomega wrote:
You will note that it says "Blood Bowl fantasy football property" and not "Blood Bowl universe". There's a reason for that. Couldn't find one for the Space Hulk license, but I'm betting it didn't say they got a license for the "Space Hulk universe".

Yes. Because GW licenses out specific parts, not just "Warhammer Fantasy" and "40k".

That's what we've been saying.

Chaos point is that the warcom article specifically says:

bring the Warhammer 40,000 universe to screens, big and small.

And this suggests it is the whole 40k universe they signed over.

Whether the warcom writers were being that specific when they said it, is another question

I think this is were the rumour mentioned above comes from

as it looks like that GW did not just licensed the specific parts as they have done in the past (like for an Amazon Eisenhorn show, GW would license them Eisenhorn and nothing else) but the wording implies that Amazon has access to the full universe

and giving someone full access is something new and was not done by GW before

I imagine they got a generous lisence, thing is even if they COULD do the Horus Heresy..
WOULD they? the Heresy is a eistablished story with eistablished characters and Amazon might see that as being less desirable to do then a story told about a original character inqusitor with no eistablished baggae etc.
And GW might ALSO prefer that. because cross merchandising is better. If Amazon does horus Heresy series, sure it might boost over all intreast in the game, but original characters would allow GW to produce mini's based on those characters.

 Hellebore wrote:
bring the Warhammer 40,000 universe to screens, big and small.

And this suggests it is the whole 40k universe they signed over.

It doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Bringing one thing from 40k to the screen would be bringing the 40k "universe" to the world.

The WarCom article is not a contract, and GW's past actions and history with licensing things is perhaps a bit more telling than some rando article on an advertising website.

I agree with Brian that it is likely a very generous license, but the idea that because an article says "universe" that they suddenly have access to everyone and everything 40k is taking that a bit too far.

 Hellebore wrote:
Chaos point is that the warcom article specifically says:

bring the Warhammer 40,000 universe to screens, big and small.

And this suggests it is the whole 40k universe they signed over.

Whether the warcom writers were being that specific when they said it, is another question

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
bring the Warhammer 40,000 universe to screens, big and small.
And this suggests it is the whole 40k universe they signed over.

It doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Bringing one thing from 40k to the screen would be bringing the 40k "universe" to the world.
The WarCom article is not a contract, and GW's past actions and history with licensing things is perhaps a bit more telling than some rando article on an advertising website.
I agree with Brian that it is likely a very generous license, but the idea that because an article says "universe" that they suddenly have access to everyone and everything 40k is taking that a bit too far.

Im not talking about warcom, I'm talking about their investor release which is official communication from the company to its shareholders and not just marketing fluff for the fanbase:

https://investor.games-workshop.com/news-posts/agreementtodevelopfilmsandtelevisionseries181223

chaos0xomega wrote:
They have two universes, what they refer to them as is irrelevant. GW licensed a *universe* to Amazon, with the option to license another *universe* to them. What they refer to those universes as is largely irrelevant, because it's clear that one of those is their scifi universe and the other is their fantasy universe. And it's clear that those universes are inclusive of the things you don't believe them to be, BECAUSE THEY ONLY HAVE TWO UNIVERSES AND THOSE UNIVERSES ARE BY DEFAULT INCLUSUVE OF THOSE PROPERTIES PER GWs OWN STATEMENTS.

I get your point but does it matter how they precisely word it in a PR releases that's made to be widely distributed, read, and understood by a more general audience and not lawyers? In the end the contract should say exactly what is licenses, in which way, and what the options are no matter how GW once used those two universes in a report. The contract should explain what is meant with those terms specifically and how they are used to avoid any confusion. That's what counts and nobody here has seen that contract as far as I know, just some PR announcement.

Maybe they are using the phrase sci fi/Warhammer 40k universe in this announcement because 40k is big (the whole galaxy!) and they can set their story in any of the places; and not because the contract is exactly about the whole of 40k (all the lore and all the different games in that IP: that "universe") as once used in a GW document years ago? We still make fun of GW miniatures for proclaiming themselves the Porsche of the wargaming hobby, not because it was a legally binding eternal definition for any future contracts the company makes but because it was, more or less, an otiose statement in one of their biannual investor reports and ramblings.

Mario has it right, people shouldn't get too hung up on how right they are or how much they know about how IP licenses work, none of us have any of the relevant information required to say anything about what the deal between GW and Amazon is. And financial reports have LITERALLY no relevancy to the matter, and can be set aside.

 kodos wrote:
I think this is were the rumour mentioned above comes from

as it looks like that GW did not just licensed the specific parts as they have done in the past (like for an Amazon Eisenhorn show, GW would license them Eisenhorn and nothing else) but the wording implies that Amazon has access to the full universe

and giving someone full access is something new and was not done by GW before

But it's also probably not "here's the license, bye."
Its likely they have exclusive access to the whole thing (so GW can't turn around and say "yeah, you have 40K but we are giving Necromunda to Netflix) but with individual projects to be agreed as and when.

deano2099 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
I think this is were the rumour mentioned above comes from

as it looks like that GW did not just licensed the specific parts as they have done in the past (like for an Amazon Eisenhorn show, GW would license them Eisenhorn and nothing else) but the wording implies that Amazon has access to the full universe

and giving someone full access is something new and was not done by GW before

But it's also probably not "here's the license, bye."
Its likely they have exclusive access to the whole thing (so GW can't turn around and say "yeah, you have 40K but we are giving Necromunda to Netflix) but with individual projects to be agreed as and when.

I would agree with that.

Nobody on earth with a functioning brain, including everyone at GW and everyone at Amazon, would think a HH series would be the best starting point for a tv and movie cineverse, so here's what's true right now:

1. the first 40K tv show made in partnership with Amazon will not be a HH show

2. if there is ever a HH show it will probably be made in partnership with Amazon (barring a disastrous souring of the relationship between the two companies).

The Horus Heresy novel series has actually reached mainstream and widespread appeal and had a number of books hit various bestsellers lists and get reviews in major publications like the New York Times. You can't really say the same about any 40k series I am aware of.

I have likewise met many people who have had no interaction with warhammer, etc. beyond having read some or all of the Horus Heresy series.

The implication of these datapoints is that the market is better primed to accept a Horus Heresy tv series than it is a warhammer 40k series.

Seems like the horror and crime imprint stories would be easiest to transfer to TV on a budget.

Yeah HH is just really odd in almost every way

Design wise its "Marines VS Marines" and whilst there IS more in there, most of the other armies are still very much similar to 40K style armies and models. So its very much a copy of 1 faction in the 40K setting just repeated over.


Then you've got the fact that for a long time it was a super niche in being a Forgeworld Resin model line only and its only recently rolled more into mainstream marketing and plastics.

Then you've the fact that the books for it actually sell really well, which is an abnormal thing for the BL book series. They sell well to those well outside of the wargame hobby too.



HH succeeds almost despite itself and its likely a huge enigma that is probably impossible to answer quite "why" its doing so comparatively well and yet it keeps doing it.


So yeah I could see a HH brand production being green lit to tie into books and such already out there. It's not what fans of 40K/AoS/Old World would jump to thinking, but when you step back you realise that there's good arguments for it to come earlier on

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
bring the Warhammer 40,000 universe to screens, big and small.

And this suggests it is the whole 40k universe they signed over.

It doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Bringing one thing from 40k to the screen would be bringing the 40k "universe" to the world.

The WarCom article is not a contract, and GW's past actions and history with licensing things is perhaps a bit more telling than some rando article on an advertising website.

I agree with Brian that it is likely a very generous license, but the idea that because an article says "universe" that they suddenly have access to everyone and everything 40k is taking that a bit too far.

There are many examples of press releases and articles from video game announcements and such where "universe" gets mentioned, in cases where they obviously only have the rights to specific things rather than the "universe" on the whole. Space Marine 2 was described as they'd be "bringing the Warhammer 40,000 universe to life like never before". Total War Warhammer was announced with them talking about the "deep and rich universe of Warhammer" and "We’ve always loved the Warhammer universe" but specifically referring to WHFB. Frontier when announcing Realms of Ruin Frontier said they had the license for the "Warhammer Age of Sigmar universe.", which apparently shouldn't be possible if GW only has two universes and there isn't a licensable universe of AoS but not including WHFB and Blood Bowl too...

Them saying they're making something in/for/with the "universe" just means it's something to do with that and they've licensed at least parts of the setting, it's absolutely not a term they've "legally defined to mean a broader range of properties" where because they said "Warhammer 40,000 universe" that inherently means they have the rights to the whole lot.

From a strategic perspective it's a terible idea to do HH.

It's not 40k. It's a prequel. It sends entirely the wrong message to the viewer. They will go into a Warhammer shop and wonder why the game isn't about Henry Cavill the emperor vs mark strong Horus. Who are these necrons and Tyranids? What's an Eldar.


It's a prequel and needs to be presented as such. It would be far too disruptive to GWs business model to position it as the start of Warhammer film media.

The smart thing to do would be to adapt one of the novels, Eisenhorn or Gaunts Ghosts.

I think Eisenhorn has been thrown around a few times as a strong potential.

I do very much agree that its the kind of story that would adapt well and be less pressure on the budget. Big war events and scenes are very expensive and if you're doing live action they are even more expensive to create. Not impossible, but everything just steps up a level and you've already got expensive props and costumes to create.

Something like Eisenhorn can be much lower in budget, you might not even need a marine or anything. You can use a few series like that to build up experience with the setting; an inventory of sets, props, costumes and understanding of the mechanics of those costumes and CGI elements too.

Plus you can build up a brand and interest so that when you go all out for a huge 40K War of Marines VS Eldar; you've got the fans chomping to watch it and you've got a lot of pre-made assets and experience to draw from.




That's actually one good reason for GW to be "generous/bold" with the licence in terms of how much Amazon got to work with. The more one studio can work within the setting the more you can pool resources.

 Overread wrote:
Yeah HH is just really odd in almost every way
Design wise its "Marines VS Marines" and whilst there IS more in there, most of the other armies are still very much similar to 40K style armies and models. So its very much a copy of 1 faction in the 40K setting just repeated over.

This only matters to the minority of viewers who actually play the game. Most people, most *casuals* won't care that there aren't orks or aeldari or whatever faction they love and feel should be given equal screentime in the show. "Marines vs Marines" means nothing to general audiences, the majority of the media we consume is ultimately "humans vs humans", and marines are near-human enough to still be seen as equally relatable. This actually probably makes a HH series more preferable than a 40k based series, unless that 40k series is something like Eisenhorn (as was rumored in the past) or Warhammer Crime, etc. where its very zoomed in and focused on interactions and conflicts between humans with the occasional monster-of-the-weThen you've the fact that the books for it actually sell really well, which is an abnormal thing for the BL book series. They sell well to those well outside of the wargame hobby too.ek xeno/warp-spawned threat.

Then you'Then you've the fact that the books for it actually sell really well, which is an abnormal thing for the BL book series. They sell well to those well outside of the wargame hobby too.ve the fact that the books for it actually sell really well, which is an abnormal thing for the BL book series. They sell well to those well outside of the wargame hobby too.

HH novels are far more dramatic than the majority of Black Library fare. Having humans on both sides of the conflict and thus being able to relate to both sides and tell stories of both sides is what makes the setting compelling and interesting to the average person that isn't invested into certain factions and isn't mainly reading/viewing for fan-service. You can very easily get a Game of Thrones style narrative out of Horus Heresy (which is a setting very much like "Marines vs Marines", in that the majority of the protagonists and atagonists are humans - while there are evil eldritch gribblies in the background that pose an oft-mentioned but rarely seen (until later seasons) existential threat but are secondary to the primary conflict posed by the participants in the ongoing civil/succession war that occupies most of the primary drama).

Most (not all, but most) 40k books are very one-sided - many (most?) are essentially either human vs alien or human vs possessed extra-dimensional human. One side in the conflict is thus very approachable and relatable, the other side is very... not, and often you don't even get POV or perspective from the other side, its told 100% from the perspective of the good guy humans - which works for books appealing to niche audiences but is harder to do for modern film and television audiences without introducing outside dynamics (often soci-political or philosophical in

nature, or involving heavy amounts of inter-personal conflict between main characters... you know the kind of stuff that results in certain people accusing something of pushing a woke agenda, when in reality its just there because without it there would be no real substance to the film or show and it would just be hours of explosions and gunfire without a plot). Yes, there are alien/bad-guy POV books and stories in black library, but these have even more limited appeal, the characters are protagonists are often difficult to relate to and require too much bac, etc. The costs of doing xenos POV is also going to be substantially higher than the cost of doing human-centric storytelling, as the costuming, sfx, and set design requirements gre much higher, whereas putting a dude in some robes or a fancy greatcoat and armored breastplate and pauldrons (ala Eisenhorn) is much lower cost. Even Space Marines could be done relatively cheaply, costuming them could be done at scale by mass producing the armor bits (ala stormtroopers and such in star wars). Scaling space marines as giants compared to regular humans is relatively easy to pull of with camera angles and relatively basic editing, though that cost factor also potentially works against HH being the starting point because representing the scale of the conflict and the size of the battles, etc. would require a lot of investment.

Thats not to say that a 40k based human vs alien/chaos storyline couldn't workr Lord of the Rings is an example of a wildly popular fantasy epic that is relatively one-sided in its storytelling perspective against a largely unrelateable and rarely present central villain and his more present but still not very relatable henchmen - but even then you still had "the human element" present in the conflict via characters like Boromir, Saruman, Denethor, etc. Going back to what I said earlier though, it seems likely that something more akin to "Eisenhorn" will be the starting point for this. Its a very personal story that allows for the character development and interpersonal drama and conflcit that modern audiences expect and demand while also still allowing for an explanation of enough of the 40k setting to familiarize mainstream audiences with a broad enough swathe of it to open doors for future storytelling. More importantly, it does so at relatively low cost as you don't have to deal with constant massive set-piece battle scenes, huge casts of characters representing all the various dramatis personae involved across 18 legions of space marines + all the other organizations and players involved, nor a huge and diverse array of environments and settings. Each book in the Eisenhorn tril
gy (and subsequent spin-offs) could reasonably be adapted into a season of a series and you're dealing with a reasonable handful of primary and supporting characters that are mostly human, a reasonable number of extras, a handful of major set/environment changes, and a reasonable amount of necessary special effects and complex costuming requirements to represent some of the more out-there characters, etc.o
If money was no object though? A Horus Heresy series would probably blow up bigly and become a cultural phenomenon ala Star Wars, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, etc. As long as it was well edited and avoided repeating the mistakes of the book series and sprawling out into a mess of far too many books that stretch the plot far too thin and muddy up the chronology and sequence of events which are occurring. ,aound knowledge to get a solid understanding and grasp of - these aren't off the table, but they aren't "phase 1" stories, this is content that GW/Amazon would explore after they've made 40k/HH/whatever enough of a household name that audiences have an understanding of what an Aeldari or a Drukhari is and why they are so concerned about their souls.