FFG loses Warhammer license : page 5 statement, ends Feb 28, 2017

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**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Do you really think there are no licensing fees for Star Wars?

Do you really think the income from the SW license doesn't more than cover that fee?

Depends on the Fee and the terms.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In a way I don't blame FFG for this move. They make great games, popular rulesets and are increasing in popularity year after year.

Why have the GW middle man when you can make something that is 99.9% similar to 40k and keep all the profits for yourself?

It's good buisness sense. Ditch the fading brand (GW) but hang onto the uber popualr brand that has a million films coming out (Star wars)

Do you really think there are no licensing fees for Star Wars?

For sure, no doubt, but Disney have been around for nearly 100 years, and in all likelihood, will probably be around for another 100 years. Plus we've got 50 Star Wars films coming out, with the net result of Disney making around a gazillion dollars or something - that's a very steady income stream for FFG.

With GW, you don't know if they're going to be around from one day to the next. Kirby and Merrit nearly ran that company into the ground, and it's likely they'll probably bankrupt themselves with another chapterhouse case or something.

The safe money is with Disney.

**Neronoxx**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In a way I don't blame FFG for this move. They make great games, popular rulesets and are increasing in popularity year after year.

Why have the GW middle man when you can make something that is 99.9% similar to 40k and keep all the profits for yourself?

It's good buisness sense. Ditch the fading brand (GW) but hang onto the uber popualr brand that has a million films coming out (Star wars)

Do you really think there are no licensing fees for Star Wars?

For sure, no doubt, but Disney have been around for nearly 100 years, and in all likelihood, will probably be around for another 100 years. Plus we've got 50 Star Wars films coming out, with the net result of Disney making around a gazillion dollars or something - that's a very steady income stream for FFG.

With GW, you don't know if they're going to be around from one day to the next. Kirby and Merrit nearly ran that company into the ground, and it's likely they'll probably bankrupt themselves with another chapterhouse case or something.

The safe money is with Disney.

Thats a hugely inaccurate statement and comparison. Disney is huge yes, but so is GW.
It would take years for GW to go under. You're forgetting how large they are, and how long they've been in business.
Gw maybe no Disney, but amongst wargames/miniatures companies, they are the equivalent.
It would make little business sense for FFG to drop Warhammer for Star Wars, when/if the Star wars license brings in as much cash as you claim, they could easily afford to keep both.
Unless Disney decided they want ALOT of money for their license. Which they probably did, because they are Disney and have the ability to enforce non-negotiable terms.
Regardless, it sounds more like FFG was cut out of the deal rather than the other way around. Maybe they weren't bringing in enough money for GW? Maybe GW believes they could accomplish the same thing in-house?
Who knows?

**MindwormGames**

I like how this thread is worded:

"FFG loses Warhammer License."

Completely unrelated, I saw an article the other day about a new GW licensee

**notprop**

Neronoxx wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In a way I don't blame FFG for this move. They make great games, popular rulesets and are increasing in popularity year after year.

Why have the GW middle man when you can make something that is 99.9% similar to 40k and keep all the profits for yourself?

It's good buisness sense. Ditch the fading brand (GW) but hang onto the uber popualr brand that has a million films coming out (Star wars)

Do you really think there are no licensing fees for Star Wars?

For sure, no doubt, but Disney have been around for nearly 100 years, and in all likelihood, will probably be around for another 100 years. Plus we've got 50 Star Wars films coming out, with the net result of Disney making around a gazillion dollars or something - that's a very steady income stream for FFG.

With GW, you don't know if they're going to be around from one day to the next. Kirby and Merrit nearly ran that company into the ground, and it's likely they'll probably bankrupt themselves with another chapterhouse case or something.

The safe money is with Disney.

Thats a hugely inaccurate statement and comparison. Disney is huge yes, but so is GW.
It would take years for GW to go under. You're forgetting how large they are, and how long they've been in business.
Gw maybe no Disney, but amongst wargames/miniatures companies, they are the equivalent.
It would make little business sense for FFG to drop Warhammer for Star Wars, when/if the Star wars license brings in as much cash as you claim, they could easily afford to keep both.
Unless Disney decided they want ALOT of money for their license. Which they probably did, because they are Disney and have the ability to enforce non-negotiable terms.
Regardless, it sounds more like FFG was cut out of the deal rather than the other way around. Maybe they weren't bringing in enough money for GW? Maybe GW believes they could accomplish the same thing in-house?
Who knows?

GW is not huge, it is a medium sized company. But you are right they are not going anywhere for some time.

Just for the sake of it I just ran a Financial Check on GW. They are rated as 4A1 on Dunn & Bradstreet and have the lowest failure score of 1. That puts them in the lowest 3% in terms of likelihood of failure.

£4.6M in long term debt, £16M in liabilities and £56M in assets, including just over £9M in working capital. They really aren't going anywhere soon (as in foreseeable future).

Of course Disney is no less likely to fail.

**Azreal13**

Disney value = $150bn
GW value = £170m

GW isn't even close to "huge."

Any business can go under overnight, given the right set of circumstances, there's no such thing as "too big to fail."

If, given the cost of the licence, production costs etc, the GW licence wasn't really worth the effort, why keep it?

**the_scotsman**

Fury of Dracula? What does that have to do with the GW license?

**MrDwhitey**

Games Workshop made Fury of Dracula.

**H.B.M.C.**

It's a GW game.

**Ghaz**

GW is a big fish in a tiny pond.

Disney is the massive, humongous fish in the ocean.

GW's direct competitors may make them look big, but they're just a minnow compared to Disney's whale.

**decker_cky**

Azreal13 wrote:
Disney value = $150bn
GW value = £170m

GW isn't even close to "huge."

Any business can go under overnight, given the right set of circumstances, there's no such thing as "too big to fail."

If, given the cost of the licence, production costs etc, the GW licence wasn't really worth the effort, why keep it?

You realise, of course, that the expression 'there's no such thing as "too big to fail."' is more appropriate to apply to Disney than to GW.

GW is big enough, and is well enough positioned financially that it's unlikely to be threatened over the term of a license. Disney is on a completely different scale, but that doesn't mean going into business with GW is a risky proposition.

**odinsgrandson**

Fury of Dracula was a game originally made by GW in the way back when.

FF was re-making all of the games that GW had abandoned over the years (at least the ones they could do without gaming scale minis).

The whole thing is probably spurred by GW's new found interest in making board games. I don't think it is very unlikely that they'll want to republish those games themselves and cut out the middle man.

Honestly, after seeing the latest financial statements from GW, I'm surprised that they're ditching any of their chances for more royalties (royalty income was way up).

I wonder if GW has the rights to the rules sets for the FF games. If not, some of these games might end up being unpublishable. And that'd be a shame.

Oh, and there's no doubt at all that FF is making a killing with the Star Wars license.

**CDiablo**

I've discussed this with many over on boardgame forums, since most boardgamers hate GW.

Ever since FFG got bought out by ANA, I saw this coming. Why make games with the GW licenses when you can do the same with Star Wars or LOTR and not only sell 20x more copies, but can sell so well that you can get your games sold in Target/Walmart/etc. It makes no sense for ANA to work with GW whatsoever as the fanbase of GW is 1/100 of what Star Wars/LOTR is. The boardgaming community doesn't want to hear it but a lot of other FFG games are going to go out of print indefinitely in lieu of high selling licensed properties.

**Zywus**

I wonder if GW's decision to unceremoniously axe their longest running IP in WHFB had any influence in the choice to not renew the license?

On one hand, I suspect that the demographic buying the Roleplaying books set in the old world is not very influenced by what GW does with their current fantasy setting but it would give me pause as someone producing tie-in products to a company's IP if said company was shown to just drop significant parts of it.

If FFG had retained the license agreement; how's the prospect for Warhammer Discwars or WHFRP in a post AoS world? Is it worth making Dark Heresy source-books for a 40K setting that might be turned upside it's head when 8th edition hits?

**Bossk_Hogg**

notprop wrote:
Yeah decrying GW while looking forward to the predilections of the Disney Corp seems....hopeful.

Eh, Disney has stuck w Hasbro since acquiring it, despite Hasbro's total mismanagement of the line. Minis are really low on their radar I imagine.

**Azreal13**

decker_cky wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:
Disney value = $150bn
GW value = £170m

GW isn't even close to "huge."

Any business can go under overnight, given the right set of circumstances, there's no such thing as "too big to fail."

If, given the cost of the licence, production costs etc, the GW licence wasn't really worth the effort, why keep it?

You realise, of course, that the expression 'there's no such thing as "too big to fail."' is more appropriate to apply to Disney than to GW.

It is perfectly appropriate to apply to both, I was using it specifically to address

It would take years for GW to go under. You're forgetting how large they are, and how long they've been in business.

While it applies to Disney just as well, in theory, in practice GW are probably closer to that particular line right now, even if closer means "not hugely close."

**odinsgrandson**

CDiablo wrote:
I've discussed this with many over on boardgame forums, since most boardgamers hate GW.

Ever since FFG got bought out by ANA, I saw this coming. Why make games with the GW licenses when you can do the same with Star Wars or LOTR and not only sell 20x more copies, but can sell so well that you can get your games sold in Target/Walmart/etc. It makes no sense for ANA to work with GW whatsoever as the fanbase of GW is 1/100 of what Star Wars/LOTR is. The boardgaming community doesn't want to hear it but a lot of other FFG games are going to go out of print indefinitely in lieu of high selling licensed properties.

I don't see Fantasy Flight as that kind of company.

Sure, GW likes to put all of its eggs into the same basket. They regularly axe properties because they see them as taking up resources that could be moved into developing their main lines. That's the mentality behind axing Warhammer Historicals, LotR and every Specialist Game range they've ever had. They see the market as a small, limited pool, and feel that the way to succeed is to funnel all potential customers into one of their large miniatures games.

Fantasy Flight has had the opposite approach. They keep their hands in a lot of pies- a lot of licensed properties, and a lot of their very own, as well as purchasing the rights to update older games. Some of those properties are huge, and some aren't known outside of the gaming community. They aren't afraid of growing the company to support more games- they don't see all games as competing for the same tiny market. They seem to think that their Mansions of Madness fans aren't necessarily considering picking up DiscWars.

**ZebioLizard2**

Zywus wrote:
I wonder if GW's decision to unceremoniously axe their longest running IP in WHFB had any influence in the choice to not renew the license?

On one hand, I suspect that the demographic buying the Roleplaying books set in the old world is not very influenced by what GW does with their current fantasy setting but it would give me pause as someone producing tie-in products to a company's IP if said company was shown to just drop significant parts of it.

If FFG had retained the license agreement; how's the prospect for Warhammer Discwars or WHFRP in a post AoS world? Is it worth making Dark Heresy source-books for a 40K setting that might be turned upside it's head when 8th edition hits?

Most people disliked WHRP after FFG made 3rd edition, so that one wasn't exactly going to cause problems.. Though would've loved to see them make something for AoS.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Fury of Dracula a GW game?

Well, I've learned something new today, which leads on to my next point: why would FFG pay for a licence for a Dracula game from GW?

The copyright on Dracula has long expired. Dracula and vampires are ingrained parts of popular culture,

so I'm wondering why the talented people at FFG didn't come up with their own near identical Dracula game, rather than pay GW licence money for Fury.

Not for the first time, a trip to Dakka leaves me feeling confused

**notprop**

FFG bought a licence for access to GWs back catalogue of very good games. Which included the Fury of Dracula and I'm guessing the artwork they made for it.

Don't worry, you don't have to get in a froth over GW copyrighting Dracula!

**Vertrucio**

FoD was just part of an overall deal to license all of GW's properties for boardgames. The reason why it's gotten two editions is that it was already a good and well liked boardgame.

FFG doesn't need GW. SW pays for itself, and GW likely over inflated the value of its IP anyway.

**warboss**

odinsgrandson wrote:

The whole thing is probably spurred by GW's new found interest in making board games. I don't think it is very unlikely that they'll want to republish those games themselves and cut out the middle man.
.

While I'm loath to defend either douchey company, I would point out that FFG started focusing on miniatures games long before GW started resurrecting their board games.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well gak...

You really didn't have a heads up on this? I figured you were just honoring your NDA.

**ProtoClone**

Not surprised, really. This seems like a standard thing, honestly. This doesn't seem like anyone was unhappy with anyone else, just business as usual.

GW partnered up with another specialized company to produce some games based on their IP brands. After a few years, they revisit the contract to see if they want to continue their partnership. In this instance, they decided not to continue the contract.

**CDiablo**

odinsgrandson wrote:

I don't see Fantasy Flight as that kind of company.

Sure, GW likes to put all of its eggs into the same basket. They regularly axe properties because they see them as taking up resources that could be moved into developing their main lines. That's the mentality behind axing Warhammer Historicals, LotR and every Specialist Game range they've ever had. They see the market as a small, limited pool, and feel that the way to succeed is to funnel all potential customers into one of their large miniatures games.

Fantasy Flight has had the opposite approach. They keep their hands in a lot of pies- a lot of licensed properties, and a lot of their very own, as well as purchasing the rights to update older games. Some of those properties are huge, and some aren't known outside of the gaming community. They aren't afraid of growing the company to support more games- they don't see all games as competing for the same tiny market. They seem to think that their Mansions of Madness fans aren't necessarily considering picking up DiscWars.

As of 2015 for all intensive purposes Fantasy Flight Games no longer exists, FFG is just an arm of the Asmodee Group. Asmodee has nothing to gain from using the GW licenses, when they can rebrand the games as Star Wars and LOTR properties and make a ton more money, afterall The Asmodee Group is owned by a investment firm known for buying low and selling high.

**Sqorgar**

CDiablo wrote:
As of 2015 for all intensive purposes Fantasy Flight Games no longer exists...

Just to save you some potential embarrassment later (and a cavalcade of memes), the phrase is actually "for all intents and purposes". But I will use this opportunity to reprint one of my favorite paragraphs on the internet:

I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it's a peach of cake.

**TheAuldGrump**

ProtoClone wrote:
Not surprised, really. This seems like a standard thing, honestly. This doesn't seem like anyone was unhappy with anyone else, just business as usual.

GW partnered up with another specialized company to produce some games based on their IP brands. After a few years, they revisit the contract to see if they want to continue their partnership. In this instance, they decided not to continue the contract.

Or at least that somebody chose not to continue the contact - it could go either way.

And I am not saying which I consider more likely - each has reasons to want to continue, each has reasons not to continue, and it is entirely possible that it was a mutual 'let us don't'.

The Auld Grump

**Veteran Sergeant**

Gamgee wrote:
Armada and X Wing are cool. Their other stuff is less well done and thought out. I have a rebel fleet sitting up on the wall. Guess what. No one wants to play me since I won too much. Seems to be a pretty common theme with me.

Anyways I feel Saga Edition is the penultimate star wars rpg.

Penultimate just means "second to last", lol. So yes, technically you are right.

**H.B.M.C.**

...

**Tannhauser42**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

so I'm wondering why the talented people at FFG didn't come up with their own near identical Dracula game, rather than pay GW licence money for Fury.

I bought Fury of Dracula because it was a resurrected long unavailable GW boardgame. If FFG had instead just randomly created Frenzy of Dracula, it wouldn't have even been a blip on my radar.

Anyway, I suspect now is the time to buy up any GW stuff from FFG I might want. I doubt they're going to do much reprinting of current product, so once what they have now is gone, that's it.

**Eldarain**

Yup got all the conquest available now and Chaos in the Old World. Can't find the Horned Rat expansion anywhere though.