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.

 notprop wrote:
The aquisition of FFG doesn't in anyway enhance or hinder then if that was an aim....

It does in one small way at least: it gives them a successful company full of competent game developers. Since the obvious first step after buying GW would be to fire everyone and give the IP to your own developers it's important to have those people in place and ready to get to work as soon as the ink on the sale paperwork is dry.

 Nightwolf829 wrote:
After watching the White-Wolf / CCP "merger" some time ago I am extremely skeptical of the whole affair. I do not trust Asmodee to be hands off.

Is that really a good comparison? I'm not familiar with the details of that situation (I played EVE at the time and my only interest in it was whether it would take resources away from the more important game), but wasn't White Wolf a failing business at the time? In that case it would be a lot more understandable if the buying company started making changes, even if those changes didn't make all of the customers happy. But I don't see that happening here, FFG is already successful with their current products and plans, so why mess with that and risk damaging it?

 Peregrine wrote:
but wasn't White Wolf a failing business at the time?

I'm not sure that was relevant (except maybe in terms of acquisition cost) because IIRC the aim was to buy the World of Darkness IP flat out (rather than licensing) for a planned MMO. CCP saw a lot of value in the IP. I'm not sure Asmodee sees the same in IP owned by FFG. Rather, FFG's stateside reputation and distribution networks are probably Asmodee's aims.

 Manchu wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
but wasn't White Wolf a failing business at the time?

I'm not sure that was relevant (except maybe in terms of acquisition cost) because IIRC the aim was to buy the World of Darkness IP flat out (rather than licensing) for a planned MMO. CCP saw a lot of value in the IP. I'm not sure Asmodee sees the same in IP owned by FFG. Rather, FFG's stateside reputation and distribution networks are probably Asmodee's aims.

Agreed, different goals in mind which makes it hard when comparing the two different mergers.

The comparison that this reminds me of is Hasbros buying of WotC. Any idea how this has gone for both parties?

I've seen a lot of people over the years (in Europe) lament FFG's ability to effectively supply and stock FFG products. This merger would seem to solve that problem, whilst giving this other mob access to the US.

It seems very symbiotic.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I've seen a lot of people over the years (in Europe) lament FFG's ability to effectively supply and stock FFG products. This merger would seem to solve that problem, whilst giving this other mob access to the US.

It seems very symbiotic.

And it will mean German and French versions of FFG games (if they don't already exist).

 Peregrine wrote:

 notprop wrote:
The aquisition of FFG doesn't in anyway enhance or hinder then if that was an aim....

It does in one small way at least: it gives them a successful company full of competent game developers. Since the obvious first step after buying GW would be to fire everyone and give the IP to your own developers it's important to have those people in place and ready to get to work as soon as the ink on the sale paperwork is dry.

Oh right. I can't wait to get to play new edition of WH40k written by same competent developers who gave us Deathwatch RPG.

^sarcasm

Well this sucks. FFG is based out of my home state. I drive past their headquarters periodically. Now they are going to get CCP'd just like WW. Asmodee was probably after the Star Wars stuff.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:


And it will mean German and French versions of FFG games (if they don't already exist).

They do. Edge Entertainment and Heidelberger Spieleverlag (or "Heidelbaer"), respectively, do the translation and distribution.
Hence my question on the upkeep of parallel distribution/production channels further up.

 treslibras wrote:


They do. Edge Entertainment and Heidelberger Spieleverlag (or "Heidelbaer"), respectively, do the translation and distribution.
Hence my question on the upkeep of parallel distribution/production channels further up.

I think the announcement mentions that they will keep working with existing distribution partners (for now). Things will probably change when the contracts run out and they will see if they still need/want to work with these companies.

 ProtoClone wrote:
The comparison that this reminds me of is Hasbros buying of WotC. Any idea how this has gone for both parties?

Pretty well for everyone.

WOTC's founders got their big pile of cash, and game development has continued on without any (apparent) issues.

Hasbro got a profitable company that, based on the popularity of WOTC's core products, seems to continue to be a profitable company (IIRC Hasbro doesn't release specific profit/loss numbers for its individual brands).

The customers continue to get the same WOTC products as always. MTG is better than it was in the pre-Hasbro era (not necessarily because of Hasbro, it has way more to do with having a better understanding of the game after 20 years of development) and the average customer probably wouldn't even notice that WOTC isn't an independent company anymore unless they look carefully at the logos on the box. D&D has lost some sales, but that has more to do with the usual edition war nonsense (sorry, 3.0/3.5 sucked and only look good because of nostalgia) and WOTC's decision to license out the core mechanics to a company that did "D&D, but better", not anything to do with Hasbro. Their experiment with miniatures games failed, but it's not like that had anything to do with who owned the company (in the case of their Star Wars game it was the IP holder revoking the license that killed it). And I have no idea about their various smaller product lines.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Well this sucks. FFG is based out of my home state. I drive past their headquarters periodically. Now they are going to get CCP'd just like WW. Asmodee was probably after the Star Wars stuff.

Again, do you have any good reasons for believing that the sky is falling, or are you just impulsively posting about how everything is already ruined before you know anything about what will happen?

Backfire wrote:
Oh right. I can't wait to get to play new edition of WH40k written by same competent developers who gave us Deathwatch RPG.

^sarcasm

They could hardly do a worse job of it than GW. And, unlike continued ownership of the IP by GW, there's at least a non-trivial chance that the game will be improved.

And a public beta.

 Peregrine wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:
The comparison that this reminds me of is Hasbros buying of WotC. Any idea how this has gone for both parties?

Pretty well for everyone.

WOTC's founders got their big pile of cash, and game development has continued on without any (apparent) issues.

Hasbro got a profitable company that, based on the popularity of WOTC's core products, seems to continue to be a profitable company (IIRC Hasbro doesn't release specific profit/loss numbers for its individual brands).

The first edition of D&D attempting to conform to Hasbro's product goals and guidelines was 4th edition that has the dubious honor of being the edition that dropped D&D out of the top spot for RPG games sold/played for the first time in 30 years since it effectively created the genre. While it definitely hasn't been doom and gloom, let's not incorrectly paint it as rosey either.

 warboss wrote:
The first edition of D&D attempting to conform to Hasbro's product goals and guidelines was 4th edition that has the dubious honor of being the edition that dropped D&D out of the top spot for RPG games sold/played for the first time in 30 years since it effectively created the genre. While it definitely hasn't been doom and gloom, let's not incorrectly paint it as rosey either.

The fact that it happened at the same time doesn't mean that one was the cause of the other. The reasons for 4th edition's failure were in place before Hasbro bought the company. D&D 3.0/3.5 was a mess. Class balance sucked even in the core rules, there were tons of expansion books with blatant power creep alongside utterly useless joke classes, non-combat interaction was incredibly superficial, etc. And because WOTC offered the core D20 mechanics under an open license any random company could come along and make a "D&D, but better" game. Which is exactly what happened with Pathfinder, another company took everything good about D&D 3.0/3.5, fixed a lot of the problems, and took over the "people who like D&D 3.0/3.5" market. So now it's time for 4th edition D&D, and you know you have to make major changes because the current game isn't working. Do you:

1) Attempt to make your own "3.0/3.5 but better" version and compete with Pathfinder to try to win back the players you've lost.

or

2) Try something new, in this case using D&D's position as "that RPG everyone knows about" to focus on new players and attempting to get into the WoW market by pushing the game in the direction of nice comfortable "tabletop WoW" mechanics.

Yes, the 4th edition experiment failed. Old players hated it (which, honestly, is the near-inevitable result of any edition change), and it doesn't seem to have accomplished its goals of getting into new markets. But that doesn't mean that this was some kind of Hasbro-driven disaster that an independent WOTC never would have allowed.

If you read about the history of 4th edition written by insiders, it was specifically an attempt to make D&D into the $50 million brand that Hasbro cares about instead of the other IP that came attached to MTG. It has nothing to do with the "timing" as both 3rd and 3.5 came out AFTER wotc became a subsidiary of Hasbro. 4e was the first time they tried to align D&D with the goals of Hasbro for their products... and it failed.

 Peregrine wrote:

 warboss wrote:
The first edition of D&D attempting to conform to Hasbro's product goals and guidelines was 4th edition that has the dubious honor of being the edition that dropped D&D out of the top spot for RPG games sold/played for the first time in 30 years since it effectively created the genre. While it definitely hasn't been doom and gloom, let's not incorrectly paint it as rosey either.

The fact that it happened at the same time doesn't mean that one was the cause of the other. The reasons for 4th edition's failure were in place before Hasbro bought the company. D&D 3.0/3.5 was a mess. Class balance sucked even in the core rules, there were tons of expansion books with blatant power creep alongside utterly useless joke classes, non-combat interaction was incredibly superficial, etc. And because WOTC offered the core D20 mechanics under an open license any random company could come along and make a "D&D, but better" game. Which is exactly what happened with Pathfinder, another company took everything good about D&D 3.0/3.5, fixed a lot of the problems, and took over the "people who like D&D 3.0/3.5" market. So now it's time for 4th edition D&D, and you know you have to make major changes because the current game isn't working. Do you:

1) Attempt to make your own "3.0/3.5 but better" version and compete with Pathfinder to try to win back the players you've lost.

or

2) Try something new, in this case using D&D's position as "that RPG everyone knows about" to focus on new players and attempting to get into the WoW market by pushing the game in the direction of nice comfortable "tabletop WoW" mechanics.

Yes, the 4th edition experiment failed. Old players hated it (which, honestly, is the near-inevitable result of any edition change), and it doesn't seem to have accomplished its goals of getting into new markets. But that doesn't mean that this was some kind of Hasbro-driven disaster that an independent WOTC never would have allowed.

no offence, but your post is absurd, and shows a severe lack of knowledge on the situation, since d&d 4th edition was released before pathfinder. Pathfinder, as we know it, was created because of 4th edition, not the other way around

 warboss wrote:
If you read about the history of 4th edition written by insiders, it was specifically an attempt to make D&D into the $50 million brand that Hasbro cares about instead of the other IP that came attached to MTG. It has nothing to do with the "timing" as both 3rd and 3.5 came out AFTER wotc became a subsidiary of Hasbro. 4e was the first time they tried to align D&D with the goals of Hasbro for their products... and it failed.

Could you provide some examples of how D&D 4th edition was influenced in negative ways by Hasbro's business goals, rather than being an attempt to salvage a broken product?

 streetsamurai wrote:
no offence, but your post is absurd, and shows a severe lack of knowledge on the situation, since d&d 4th edition was released before pathfinder. Pathfinder, as we know it, was created because of 4th edition, not the other way around

Ok, I was slightly wrong on the timing (it's been a long time since I cared about D&D), but so are you. D&D 4th edition was released in June 2008, while Pathfinder (as a stand-alone game instead of D&D-compatible material) was announced in March 2008 by people who had already been working on 3.5 edition stuff. It certainly got a boost when 4th edition was released, but the foundation for the game was already in place before then. And the main point of my argument remains: 3.5e D&D was a broken mess, and the fact that 4th edition turned out to be a bad decision doesn't change the fact that something needed to be done.

 Peregrine wrote:

 warboss wrote:
If you read about the history of 4th edition written by insiders, it was specifically an attempt to make D&D into the $50 million brand that Hasbro cares about instead of the other IP that came attached to MTG. It has nothing to do with the "timing" as both 3rd and 3.5 came out AFTER wotc became a subsidiary of Hasbro. 4e was the first time they tried to align D&D with the goals of Hasbro for their products... and it failed.

Could you provide some examples of how D&D 4th edition was influenced in negative ways by Hasbro's business goals, rather than being an attempt to salvage a broken product?

 streetsamurai wrote:
no offence, but your post is absurd, and shows a severe lack of knowledge on the situation, since d&d 4th edition was released before pathfinder. Pathfinder, as we know it, was created because of 4th edition, not the other way around

Ok, I was slightly wrong on the timing (it's been a long time since I cared about D&D), but so are you. D&D 4th edition was released in June 2008, while Pathfinder (as a stand-alone game instead of D&D-compatible material) was announced in March 2008 by people who had already been working on 3.5 edition stuff. It certainly got a boost when 4th edition was released, but the foundation for the game was already in place before then. And the main point of my argument remains: 3.5e D&D was a broken mess, and the fact that 4th edition turned out to be a bad decision doesn't change the fact that something needed to be done.

I wasn't wrong. they started working on pathfinder cause they knew that 4th edition would diverge a lot form the previous editions. As I said, pathfinder was created because of D&D 4th edition, not the other way around

http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Pathfinder_Roleplaying_Game

On March 18, 2008 Paizo Publishing made a monumental announcement. Amid the speculation and community division caused by the impending release of Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition by Wizards of the Coast and the delayed announcement of the Game System License (GSL), Paizo took a stand and committed to continue publishing adventures under the existing Open Gaming License (OGL).[1]

Not only would Paizo be continuing in a path differing from that of Wizards of the Coast (and possibly the whole tabletop gaming industry), they would also revolutionize it. As part of the company's commitment to the 3.5 rules set, they unveiled the Pathfinder RPG, an updated, expanded core game to replace the official Dungeons & Dragons books after they have gone out of print upon the release of 4th Edition in June, 2008.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder_Roleplaying_Game

In August 2007, Wizards of the Coast announced the pending release of the 4th edition of Dungeons & Dragons, which replaced version 3.5. Many of the staff at Paizo were concerned about the more restrictive Game System License the 4th edition was being released under.[2] Instead of continuing to support D&D, Paizo released Pathfinder as a modified version of the 3.5 edition game, under the Open Game License used by the older version.[3][4] Announced in March 2008, the Pathfinder RPG was designed over the course of a year using an open playtest model, where players could try the system and post their feedback on Paizo's website.[5]

 Peregrine wrote:

 warboss wrote:
If you read about the history of 4th edition written by insiders, it was specifically an attempt to make D&D into the $50 million brand that Hasbro cares about instead of the other IP that came attached to MTG. It has nothing to do with the "timing" as both 3rd and 3.5 came out AFTER wotc became a subsidiary of Hasbro. 4e was the first time they tried to align D&D with the goals of Hasbro for their products... and it failed.

Could you provide some examples of how D&D 4th edition was influenced in negative ways by Hasbro's business goals, rather than being an attempt to salvage a broken product?

You mean like trying to meet that goal of a $50 million a year core brand by broadening the audience specifically by trying to integrate MMO style mechanics and online components into a product that didn't need it for a fanbase that largely didn't want it? You may find the link below with some actual facts on what happened an interesting read...

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315975-WotC-DDI-4E-and-Hasbro-Some-History

As for an attempt to "salvage a broken product", the fact that Pathfinder overtook D&D and was mostly exactly the same "broken" product would indicate that in fact nothing was really broken. It just needed a tune up and oil change. 4th edition and the changes it brought (largely abandoned in 5th) were due to them trying to meet the Hasbro core product criteria.

 agnosto wrote:


No, I get that but you have to have a clear understanding of a the attractiveness of a middle-size global retail chain with weakening financials. You also have to take into account that parent companies generally listen to their subsidiaries so if Eurazeo puts together a good presentation on how acquiring GW would benefit the conglomerate's bottom line....

It's all pie in the sky because until Kirby goes on to his reward (the bahamas?) he's going to continue to exert a stranglehold on GW.

Wasn't disputing your notion of Eurazeo buying GW, just that you were saying Asmodee was a multi-billion dollar company when it really is Eurazeo with the deep pockets.

Not sure who is behind this surge to create a new major game company if it was someone at Eurazeo or someone at Asmondee convincing Eurazeo to supply the cash. This is all happening fairly fast. Eurazeo just bought Asmondee the beginning of this year.

 warboss wrote:
You mean like trying to meet that goal of a $50 million a year core brand by broadening the audience specifically by trying to integrate MMO style mechanics and online components into a product that didn't need it for a fanbase that largely didn't want it? You may find the link below with some actual facts on what happened an interesting read...

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?315975-WotC-DDI-4E-and-Hasbro-Some-History

That doesn't say anything about Hasbro interfering with game design decisions. It just points out that Hasbro, like any other sensible business, wants their products to make as much money as possible instead of settling for stagnant sales and just making a profit every year. D&D needed changes because the game was broken and there wasn't much room left for new products (since all the core books were done, each class had plenty of expansion material, and there's a limit to how many campaign settings you can sell at once). So WOTC had two choices: a "balance patch" redesign for 4th edition that fixed some of the major issues but probably wouldn't really do much to expand the market, or a major redesign that had the potential to bring in major growth. And I don't see how you can argue that the only way the second option could be appealing is if Hasbro demands it.

And of course the fanbase didn't want it. I assume you've heard the term "edition war" before? You know, the thing where everything before you first played D&D is an obsolete relic, the edition you started with is the best ever, and anything after it is a heretical defiling of the sacred truth? But many of those people aren't really customers anymore. They already own all of the books, and no matter what you do with the new edition the mere fact that it's a new edition means that half of them are going to ragequit and/or keep playing the same edition forever.

As for an attempt to "salvage a broken product", the fact that Pathfinder overtook D&D and was mostly exactly the same "broken" product would indicate that in fact nothing was really broken. It just needed a tune up and oil change. 4th edition and the changes it brought (largely abandoned in 5th) were due to them trying to meet the Hasbro core product criteria.

You're making two big mistakes here

1) You're analyzing a decision based on 20/20 hindsight instead of what was known at the time. Obviously the "tabletop WoW" market was smaller than expected and 4th edition didn't bring in a bunch of WoW players, but nobody could have known that at the time. If the plan had worked then we'd be talking about the excellent decision to ditch the old "3.5 forever" crowd and dominate the tabletop RPG industry with a flood of new players lured in by the promise of "just like WoW, but offline" gaming, while Pathfinder is a minor footnote in the history of D&D.

2) You're assuming that Pathfinder is the best possible outcome and 3.6e is the D&D game that everyone wanted, rather than a "better than nothing" reaction to the new edition of the official game being a failure. It's pretty clearly better than 3.0/3.5 edition, but would it have been better than a hypothetical 4th edition that made major changes, but in different ways than the actual 4th edition? In that situation Pathfinder might have been an irrelevant game played only by the same kind of people who still play 1st edition D&D because everything since then sucks.

 Peregrine wrote:

1) You're analyzing a decision based on 20/20 hindsight instead of what was known at the time. Obviously the "tabletop WoW" market was smaller than expected and 4th edition didn't bring in a bunch of WoW players, but nobody could have known that at the time. If the plan had worked then we'd be talking about the excellent decision to ditch the old "3.5 forever" crowd and dominate the tabletop RPG industry with a flood of new players lured in by the promise of "just like WoW, but offline" gaming, while Pathfinder is a minor footnote in the history of D&D.

No, not 20/20 hindsight but rather relaying my personal first impressions and experience as well as that of my old two d&d groups. I picked up the 4e preview books as well as the starter adventure that came out months before the trio core books and it all felt off IMO like they were trying to force a square peg in a round hole. I still got the trio core books but further reading and playing just confirmed my suspicions. Out of around 12-15 players, 3 people liked 4e and only 1 actually preferred it. Obviously that opinion is anecdotal but judging from the fact that Pathfinder consistently outsold D&D once it got its final retail release, I don't think we were an outlier. In any case, we've drifted far from the original topic. Can this merger result in good things for FFG? Possibly but I'd guess that the benefit would be on the worldwide availability side and not the creative endeavors. Could bad things happen? Sure. In any case, only time will tell. If anything, I don't expect much change in the FFG product lines I have followed or am following (Deathwatch and X-wing) as licensed products tend to be more regulated by the external IP holders than wholely owned FFG ones.

The problems of 4E cannot be blamed on a merger that happened ~8 years before. especially considering the sales of Third during those 8 years.

 Manchu wrote:
The problems of 4E cannot be blamed on a merger that happened ~8 years before. especially considering the sales of Third during those 8 years.

Agreed.

So, basically the point is WotC has done well, despite a hiccup, even though they are now owned by Hasbro.

Crying that Asmodee is going to ruin FFG, like CCP ruined WW, is unfounded. Apples and oranges, apples and oranges...