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.

.. new AFAIK... up since end of July.

http://licensing.games-workshop.com/


links/info about the various licensed properties Gw have.

Nothing new or unknown on there as far as I can see.

One hadn't quite thought about exactly how many licenses they have out there currently.


... wonder if the WFRP one will stay ?

Oh - this will be a handy way to keep track of the crazy amount of game licenses they've been handing out lately.

16 games listed! Though 3 of them are pre-existing ones to be fair.

the troubling thing to my thinking, is how none of the upcoming games really look like something exciting. they're all well.... crap. most'll appeal to people whom already know and have an opinion on warhammer. given their declining financials, on the video games front GW could do with something big.

Yes, I think you are right but I don't see how they can change that within their announced strategy which is to concentrate on developing new titles out of the existing fluff.

They can hope that Death Wing might hook people keen on FPS games -- which are very popular -- and get them into 40K in the same way that Dawn of War hooked a fair number of RTS game players into the fluff.

The thing is that the kind of FPS games really popular nowadays are multi-player team games with both sides having a fairly balanced set of tools and powers. The opposite of the Space Hulk set up.

BrianDavion wrote:
the troubling thing to my thinking, is how none of the upcoming games really look like something exciting. they're all well.... crap. most'll appeal to people whom already know and have an opinion on warhammer. given their declining financials, on the video games front GW could do with something big.

Doesn't Creative Assembly hold a WFB license for a while now? A Warhammer: Total War would definitely be in the realms of big.

I actually found my original Chainsaw Warrior box set the other week. Hopefully will get to play it soon )

Some of those games are terrible, total waste of licensing.

 Wolfstan wrote:
I actually found my original Chainsaw Warrior box set the other week. Hopefully will get to play it soon )

I had a go on that just recently, block wars as well, cracking game !

 Rayvon wrote:
I had a go on that just recently, block wars as well, cracking game !

Maybe avoid the electronic version though.

 Haljin wrote:
Doesn't Creative Assembly hold a WFB license for a while now? A Warhammer: Total War would definitely be in the realms of big.

That's Sega. And as far as I know, not much is happening with that licence right now.

It's "Eternal Crusade" that bothers me. It's pretty clearly just tech re-use from Space Marine, and they're already selling pricey "founder packs" for it.

 Bull0 wrote:
It's "Eternal Crusade" that bothers me. It's pretty clearly just tech re-use from Space Marine, and they're already selling pricey "founder packs" for it.

Unless the somehow made a deal with Sega to lend them the tech, there's not going to be the case.

The founders packs and pay-for kit are really just skins.
They say the weapons are 'sidegrades' instead of upgrades, and are only there for customisation. If it works as they well us, it's not going to be a pay-to-play, but a pay-to-play-your-way kind of thing.
We'll have to see. It's an odd way to make money, but trying to stand out on the battlefield needs more than just leet-skillz.

[Addition: There was what looked to be a direct lift from Space Marine in the demo video. The grenade warning marker was identical to that in SM.]

If you've watched the videos for Eternal Crusade you'll see that it is nothing like Space Marine. No shared art assets or anything. It doesn't look like it will be successful either. But we'll see.

Nvs wrote:
If you've watched the videos for Eternal Crusade you'll see that it is nothing like Space Marine. No shared art assets or anything. It doesn't look like it will be successful either. But we'll see.

I mean... I have to assume you're kidding with this. The models, animations, and all the floating graphics and text and whatnot are 1:1 lifts from Space Marine. You'd have to be blind not to see it.

And I've watched plenty of their videos, which is precisely what led me to my conclusions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
It's "Eternal Crusade" that bothers me. It's pretty clearly just tech re-use from Space Marine, and they're already selling pricey "founder packs" for it.

Unless the somehow made a deal with Sega to lend them the tech, there's not going to be the case.

Combination of it being a licensed product and THQ being defunct = pretty plausible. We see models and other assets being reused across different 40k games fairly often (a recent example is the twin-stick shooter Kill Team which was pretty much built from Dawn of War 2 bits)

 reds8n wrote:


... wonder if the WFRP one will stay ?

I hope so, FFG does right by all of their outside IP licenses. I've thought for years now that if GW released the core WHF and 40K rules writing to FFG, and just stuck to making the models...they could have a really solid, unstoppable pair of miniature games...alas, the games (army books in particular) are now too tied directly into their marketing strategy...rather than simply making great minis for solid, balanced rules.

I have all of the WFRP 3rd published material...they stopped short of releasing an Elf supplement, unfortunately...I really hope they re-boot this system, maybe with some of the refinements they made for their Star Wars RPG rules...skip all the fiddly card and token bits, and just make some solid core rules and kick @$$ splat books.

Alas, I will keep playing their Star Wars game until they do...

Yeah, I agree with Bull. There is nothing in Eternal Crusade that doesn't look like a minor mod of Space Marine, down to the fonts and screen layout.

 Bull0 wrote:

Nvs wrote:
If you've watched the videos for Eternal Crusade you'll see that it is nothing like Space Marine. No shared art assets or anything. It doesn't look like it will be successful either. But we'll see.

I mean... I have to assume you're kidding with this. The models, animations, and all the floating graphics and text and whatnot are 1:1 lifts from Space Marine. You'd have to be blind not to see it.

And I've watched plenty of their videos, which is precisely what led me to my conclusions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
It's "Eternal Crusade" that bothers me. It's pretty clearly just tech re-use from Space Marine, and they're already selling pricey "founder packs" for it.

Unless the somehow made a deal with Sega to lend them the tech, there's not going to be the case.

Combination of it being a licensed product and THQ being defunct = pretty plausible. We see models and other assets being reused across different 40k games fairly often (a recent example is the twin-stick shooter Kill Team which was pretty much built from Dawn of War 2 bits)

For all we know when THQ went down the pan, the code and art assets from their GW licensed games may have reverted to GW under some kind of contractual arrangement, which would allow GW to hand them over to another game company. It would be a sensible thing to put in the contract given GW's sensitivity about their IP.

 reds8n wrote:
... wonder if the WFRP one will stay ?

FFG did pull the plug on that one, maybe a bit too radical and different from what we're used to? Does make me wonder if FFG is going to give it another go or focus on 40k and Star Wars instead.

 Fango wrote:

I hope so, FFG does right by all of their outside IP licenses. I've thought for years now that if GW released the core WHF and 40K rules writing to FFG, and just stuck to making the models...they could have a really solid, unstoppable pair of miniature games...alas, the games (army books in particular) are now too tied directly into their marketing strategy...rather than simply making great minis for solid, balanced rules.

I have all of the WFRP 3rd published material...they stopped short of releasing an Elf supplement, unfortunately...I really hope they re-boot this system, maybe with some of the refinements they made for their Star Wars RPG rules...skip all the fiddly card and token bits, and just make some solid core rules and kick @$$ splat books.

That's one of the FFG's downsides, they seldom seem satisfied with a solid core mechanic, they just have to add all sorts of bells & whistles on it until it becomes unplayable mess. I really hope too that one point they reboot WFRP since originally it kicked ass and it's an awesome RPG world.

This is also why the idea of them making 40k ruleset makes me cringe...

A continuation of well-backed WFRP would be nice but I think FFG is less interested in that over 40k/Star Wars. 40k has more popularity than WHF, and the fantasy RPG market has far more content from other companies than Sci-Fi. While WHF is very dissimilar from other fantasy RPGs in both fluff and rules, it is still harder to stand out from the walls of DnD and Pathfinder products.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
For all we know when THQ went down the pan, the code and art assets from their GW licensed games may have reverted to GW under some kind of contractual arrangement, which would allow GW to hand them over to another game company. It would be a sensible thing to put in the contract given GW's sensitivity about their IP.

What company would allow for their own code to be given to a licensor to give away? Their engines got used for multiple projects and probably include some 3rd party code that they licensed themselves (there are probably multiple licensing issues). And I can't really see them doing all that work just for GW (if I remember correctly THQ were licensing a lot of properties).

I also don't see a reason for them to grant GW the assets (for free?) that they created. For that insurance to be in any way useful for them (THQ) GW would need to accept a lower fee (or some other goodie) and I don't see GW going for less money than they can get away with. While all of that could be possible (and GW might be protective of their IP) they also have shown to not know how exactly all this IP stuff works and tend overreact when they don't need to (and also in the wrong way).

I was surprised that Fury of Dracula was not on the list, and then I went and looked and saw it was no longer available from FFG.

Mario wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
For all we know when THQ went down the pan, the code and art assets from their GW licensed games may have reverted to GW under some kind of contractual arrangement, which would allow GW to hand them over to another game company. It would be a sensible thing to put in the contract given GW's sensitivity about their IP.

What company would allow for their own code to be given to a licensor to give away? Their engines got used for multiple projects and probably include some 3rd party code that they licensed themselves (there are probably multiple licensing issues). And I can't really see them doing all that work just for GW (if I remember correctly THQ were licensing a lot of properties).

I also don't see a reason for them to grant GW the assets (for free?) that they created. For that insurance to be in any way useful for them (THQ) GW would need to accept a lower fee (or some other goodie) and I don't see GW going for less money than they can get away with. While all of that could be possible (and GW might be protective of their IP) they also have shown to not know how exactly all this IP stuff works and tend overreact when they don't need to (and also in the wrong way).

If a company goes bankrupt the official receiver has the duty of selling off the assets to generate the maximum possible cash to pay off outstanding debts. Code and art assets would be included in this.

Backfire wrote:
... they just have to add all sorts of bells & whistles on it until it becomes unplayable mess.

...

This is also why the idea of them making 40k ruleset makes me cringe...

Couldn't possibly disagree more. FFG writing the rules for 40K would result in a focused set of rules designed to be played and not designed to sell the latest plastic crack.

Backfire wrote:
That's one of the FFG's downsides, they seldom seem satisfied with a solid core mechanic, they just have to add all sorts of bells & whistles on it until it becomes unplayable mess.

You just described GW's strategy, except instead of starting with a solid core mechanic they start with the core mechanics of a bad 1980s fantasy game. And the result is already an unplayable mess, so I don't really see how FFG (or anyone else) could make it worse.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I was surprised that Fury of Dracula was not on the list, and then I went and looked and saw it was no longer available from FFG.

... huh.


.. guess I'll never pick that one up then.

.. no BB card game either ? That's still up and running though I thought ?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

For all we know when THQ went down the pan, the code and art assets from their GW licensed games may have reverted to GW under some kind of contractual arrangement, which would allow GW to hand them over to another game company. It would be a sensible thing to put in the contract given GW's sensitivity about their IP.

Yep, that's what I'm kind of thinking happened. I don't have a problem with it as a business practice, it just doesn't give me high hopes for the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Couldn't possibly disagree more. FFG writing the rules for 40K would result in a focused set of rules designed to be played and not designed to sell the latest plastic crack.

That is a beautiful dream.

They need to do Battlefield 40K. Choose 4 shooty armies and make a kick ass game. But they won't, because they filled their quota for 1 good 40K game when they made Dawn of War I.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Backfire wrote:
... they just have to add all sorts of bells & whistles on it until it becomes unplayable mess.

...

This is also why the idea of them making 40k ruleset makes me cringe...

Couldn't possibly disagree more. FFG writing the rules for 40K would result in a focused set of rules designed to be played and not designed to sell the latest plastic crack.

I think the problem would be that the FFG 40K rules would be even MORE needlessly complicated, with loads of counters and cards. FFG doesn't do anything simple, even when the concept lends itself to simplicity. Also, FFG's actual rule writing is somewhat difficult to follow at times. I had to download a "revised" version of the Arkham Horror rules from Headless Hollow Game Sheets ( http://www.headlesshollow.com/freebies_games.html ) to really wrap my head around it because the FFG version made my head hurt.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If a company goes bankrupt the official receiver has the duty of selling off the assets to generate the maximum possible cash to pay off outstanding debts. Code and art assets would be included in this.

The first post implied that GW had some right to get these assets (revert, as if they own some of that). They just granted THQ a license (probably with restriction on what can be done with it) and after THQ tanked that license probably reverted back to GW (I think it was not transfered to someone else with the GW related assets) making all the assets useless (except if someone were to have a license where they could be useful) and GW (or anyone else) is not mentioned anywhere when it came to the GW specific assets and license(I think).

Are there any details about anyone buying/getting these assets or what happened to the license? From the Chapterhouse lawsuit it seems that GW had to ask some past illustrators to renew their license because they didn't have the rights to some of that stuff anymore. That just doesn't fill me with any confidence that GW had any idea how to profit from the THQ disaster. I haven't seen where any of that stuff could have gone (I didn't hunt down detailed information regarding what happened after THQ, just a few summaries) so my guess is that the licensing rights went back to GW and eliminated some exclusivity clause. That's could be why GW was able to grant so many 40k licenses in their recent history.

My (slightly informed) guess is that the THQ GW assets are in some sort of useless limbo and GW doesn't care to spend their money or mental firepower to use that to their profit.