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.

I honestly think that this wasn't a decision by GW, but by FFG. FFG is known for milking a property and then letting it go, because it's a sound business decision.

Everyone that wanted those games, has already bought them or will be able to buy them for another six months.

Talisman was already mined out, even dedicated fans were not all that exited to need a ping pong table to layout the complete game...

Warhammer: Invasion was already on it's way out.

Horus Heresy, Old World, and Relic hadn't had expansions for a LONG while.

The RPGs... WFRP was pretty much dead for a while now, especially after AoS. the 40k RPGs were a pain to keep pace with, with five different RPGS and most of those were also pretty much mined out for ideas and profitable products.

What was really still going on was Forbidden Stars (rumors of unreleased expansions), Warhammer 40k: Conquest (only three seasons), and Warhammer Quest cardgame (two tiny expansions, while the game has a ton of potential).

Why would FFG want to continue squeezing water from a rock? Especially when they can are now perfectly capable of making games based on their own IP, are buying IPs (Legend of the Five Rings) and have far bigger licenses (like Star Wars, LotR, and Game of Thrones)...

I'm a fan of the products that both GW and FFG makes, I currently have most of the games I want from the FFG/GW IPs, that's a lot! Do I really feel that I'm missing anything (beyond the three games mentioned before) from the Warhammer (40k) IPs? No, absolutely not, I see no reason to get some new edition or system.

If someone else picked up the licenses for the GW games, I think not all that many of it would be sold, unless it's an extremely good game. The chances of that happening with all the competition running around are very slim.

I could see a company like CMoN picking up the license, if there wasn't an issue with 30mm miniatures that GW want's exclusivity on.

imho the best we can hope for is that the licenses go into the freezer for a few years and GW learns some new skills with the new Specialist Games division and they'll start publishing themselves again...

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Small plastic toy soldiers/vehicles, with made up numerical stat lines, that we move around a decorated table top, roll dice to simulate combat and say pew pew.

Sounds pretty similar to me.

Haven't you been paying attention? They don't compete with one another because X-Wing and 40K aren't exactly the same. Never mind the fact that they both exist in the same market space and compete for market share, so much so that the two often find themselves in list of 'best sellers' for retailers and whatnot. That's all inconsequential: They don't compete. At all. Ever.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Small plastic toy soldiers/vehicles, with made up numerical stat lines, that we move around a decorated table top, roll dice to simulate combat and say pew pew.

Sounds pretty similar to me.

Haven't you been paying attention? They don't compete with one another because X-Wing and 40K aren't exactly the same. Never mind the fact that they both exist in the same market space and compete for market share, so much so that the two often find themselves in list of 'best sellers' for retailers and whatnot. That's all inconsequential: They don't compete. At all. Ever.

It's fairly clear neither poster was paying attention to the discussion, but feel free to have your own if you have anything to add as to why GW and FFG parted ways.

Krinsath, you can safely give up on posters who ignore your lengthy and well-articulated posts patiently explaining the relevant issues. If someone refuses to see how a product line that is marketed as requiring (at least) dozens of hours of hobby work, as well as all the expenitures on glue, paint, tools, etc, required for that, is not a direct competitor for product line that requires none ofnthat, then no amount of rational discussion will help.

Cergorach wrote:
imho the best we can hope for is that the licenses go into the freezer for a few years and GW learns some new skills with the new Specialist Games division and they'll start publishing themselves again...

I agree that FFG choosing not to renew could make sense; certainly more sense than GW demanding that FFG stop publishing X-Wing! But licensing revenue is apparently pretty important to GW's contemporary bottom line. Licensing also gives GW brand visibility, which helps with their own lack of direct advertising. So I think GW is more likely to want another licensing partner to take FFG's place rather than start publishing RPGs and card games themselves, or even make board games that appeal beyond their existing target demographic.

 Monkeysloth wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:




Someone said GW plan to re-release the specialist games. Did they ever make a 40k based pen and paper RPG? I thought GW were still having books printed in China and not in house. Do they have a UK print publisher?

Yes, called Dark Heresy. They then licensed the rules and game to FFG.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000_Roleplay

Thanks.
Was this the latest version or did FFG re-release it in a with totally different mechanics?

I did actually play (probably 7 or 8 years ago) Dark Heresy - in fact I probably have a rulebook in the loft somewhere. We played for a while until the RPG group I game with decided they wanted to go back to D&D. Sci-Fi has never been their thing. For some reason, I thought it had been FFG that made it.

FFG published a long line of Dark Heresy supplements, several related/compatible games, and then published a second edition with rules based on the Only War RPG (the one that focused on playing Guardsmen). DH 2E has I think five supporting books: the GM screen/adventure module, an adventure path, and three sourcebooks.

 Krinsath wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Small plastic toy soldiers/vehicles, with made up numerical stat lines, that we move around a decorated table top, roll dice to simulate combat and say pew pew.

Sounds pretty similar to me.

#humour

Haven't you been paying attention? They don't compete with one another because X-Wing and 40K aren't exactly the same. Never mind the fact that they both exist in the same market space and compete for market share, so much so that the two often find themselves in list of 'best sellers' for retailers and whatnot. That's all inconsequential: They don't compete. At all. Ever.

#humour
#sarcasm

It's fairly clear neither poster was paying attention to the discussion, but feel free to have your own if you have anything to add as to why GW and FFG parted ways.

Added what I thought you maybe missed.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Added what I thought you maybe missed.

It wasn't missed which is why I didn't reply to your initial post until others piled onto the idea. The presentation at that point was such that casual readers may actually think that was the topic at hand and be led astray.

The lumping in of your comment with H.B.M.C's snark for comedic effect on paying attention makes me just as guilty though.

 Krinsath wrote:

Counterpoint: "GW doesn't see X-Wing as competition because the experience X-Wing offers is not what 40k offers,

Why do I laugh when I read this. GW doesn't offer fun. GW doesn't offer clear concise well written rules. Yup I guess there is no competition there at all.

Davor wrote:

 Krinsath wrote:

Counterpoint: "GW doesn't see X-Wing as competition because the experience X-Wing offers is not what 40k offers,

Why do I laugh when I read this. GW doesn't offer fun. GW doesn't offer clear concise well written rules. Yup I guess there is no competition there at all.

Now you're getting the idea!

But seriously, do you want a game where the normal size plays in less than an hour*? Do you want something you can carry around all you need for a day's gaming securely in a lunchbox-sized case? Do you want manufacturer-supported organized play like tournaments and scenarios so you get to meet a broader community, possibly travelling to other cities? Do you want to buy a new release and immediately get to use it our of the box? Do you want easy rules reference during play just by looking at the table? Do you want to have little downtime during play (meaning, you aren't standing around terribly long while your opponent does things)?

If any of those things are priority issues for you, then GW is not currently selling a product that meets your needs. The (non-)wisdom of that strategy is kind of self-evident, but it's their strategy.

* - I've not timed how long Kill Team usually takes to play, so this point may only apply to "normal" 40k.

 Krinsath wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Added what I thought you maybe missed.

It wasn't missed which is why I didn't reply to your initial post until others piled onto the idea. The presentation at that point was such that casual readers may actually think that was the topic at hand and be led astray.

The lumping in of your comment with H.B.M.C's snark for comedic effect on paying attention makes me just as guilty though.

Fair point and my apologies. I just thought the humour might derail the... what.... 10+ pages of everyone arguing if 40k/X-Wing are competitors.

I still however think the title of the thread itself forms bias. "loses" implies they couldn't keep it, or GW chose to take it from them. More likely, GW priced themselves out of business in an attempt to raise their license money for the next financial report now that the Total War initial spend is dying down.

Unless someone from GW or FFG leaves their respective company and spills the beans - I guess we'll never know the real truth.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
I still however think the title of the thread itself forms bias. "loses" implies they couldn't keep it, or GW chose to take it from them. More likely, GW priced themselves out of business in an attempt to raise their license money for the next financial report now that the Total War initial spend is dying down.

Unless someone from GW or FFG leaves their respective company and spills the beans - I guess we'll never know the real truth.

That is a fair point since it's most likely "have parted ways" much more than "lost" or "was taken away." As Cegorach theorized the split could have come from FFG's side of the aisle wherein they wanted to make RuneWars, knew that it would violate the license and so said "Not renewing, kthnxbai!" because they internally decided the upside on RuneWars was more than the in-development licensed products. Given that owned IPs are always more profitable than licensed, that's not outside the realm of possibility. It could be both GW waking up to reality and FFG's future plans, or it could be because Kirby got a fortune cookie at lunch that told him to make Rountree do it (i.e. - some completely off-the-wall idea not even considered).

As you say, we'll likely never know the actual truth, but life would be quite boring if we just shrugged and went "dunno" every time.

 Krinsath wrote:

The conversation isn't about the view from retail where of course there are in competition just like they are with everything else including music, beer, movies, cookies and anything else non-essential spending can go towards. The conversation is about whether or not GW cares in the slightest about that, because if they were the ones who ended the license then their's is the opinion that actually mattered. They don't care about the large sums of money MTG brings in, because they don't want the customers looking for the experience a CCG provides (despite being insanely profitable). They don't care about the money video games make, even though the money for those comes out of the same portion of a consumers budget, because the person looking at those products isn't looking for the experience they offer. If one side isn't competing, how is there competition?

Now, that raises an interesting possibility as a supporting argument for the original theory: Rountree realizes how idiotic that outlook was/is and is indeed taking steps to redress that balance. However, given how GW's licensing fees and royalties are what prop up their financial report, it seems ill-advised to end it when they're going to have to incur significant expense trying to replace FFG (in lost sales) or making them in-house (in overhead). Of course, GW's has had a skewed outlook for so long and has shed so much business for no good reason that any course correction to broaden their vision of who their customers are is going to be unpleasant.

Company X not wanting customers Y to pay for service Z because that is not what they've developped is an absolutely suicidal way of doing business. I think you realize that. If the market didn't provide me with the opportunity to experience playing Netrunner, X-Wing, GoT, etc, then I would have to fall back on other choices. IP recognition, play availability and habits would've made it a GW game 10 to 1. But because these options are available, the only thing GW can do to prevent me from switching funds to those venues is to acknowledge that those games provide me with something GW refuse to, and develop an answer to them.

Finally, the videogame comparison is relatively weak. I have seen many videogamers shift heavily towards boardgames because they did recoup the gaming experience they had, while also making a social event out of it. If someone plays both video games and boardgames/wargames, then there is competition for the share of the funds. There are many ways for a company to secure those funds for itself, but pretending that the other options are not even on the radar is not one of them.

Silver Tower and Gorechosen (Jeebus what a horrible fething name) are steps in the good direction, in my opinion. But GW needs a strong, acclaimed release, something like Bloodrage, Rising Sun or Imperial Assault.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Krinsath, you can safely give up on posters who ignore your lengthy and well-articulated posts patiently explaining the relevant issues. If someone refuses to see how a product line that is marketed as requiring (at least) dozens of hours of hobby work, as well as all the expenitures on glue, paint, tools, etc, required for that [...]

But GW doesn't market their product line at all!

 Krinsath wrote:

...wherein they wanted to make RuneWars, knew that it would violate the license and so said "Not renewing...

RuneWars does not violate any license they had with GW, you might remember that FFG did Dust (after AEG) during their GW license stint. Dust Tactics is pretty much a miniature wargame, same scale as 40k. As far as I know, the only thing FFG couldn't do was make 3d board pieces that were the same scale as GW minis and GW kept some boardgame implementations for themselves. Space Hulk is a good example of that, GW did the boardgame with minis, FFG did the cardgame...

As for X-wing competing with 40k, yeah they are competing with each other. But folks forget that customer bases aren't dots, they are circles.Circles that can overlap, but don't have to overlap completely. Where 40k has a assembly painting requirement, x-wing doesn't. That means for that reason alone there are folks that will touch one and not the other. Another is the IP used, some will buy SW, others won't and vice versa with GW. Scale is different, battlefield is different, theme is different, etc. Where they overlap is that they are both sci-fi miniatures games with competitive rules. I would also argue both sell based on an 'arms race', forcing competitive players to continue to buy products. FFG is more US centric, GW is more UK/EU centric, both still have a large following in the other region, though.

I'm not saying FFG didn't continue with the GW license because of RuneWars, but because most GW licensed sales had already been done and creating more product that sold well was an uphill battle. There are only so many LCGs one can support, they recently bought L5R and they'll be doing another LCG with that property.

That's also the reason why I can't see another company picking up the license for board/cardgames and RPGs. The market is currently saturated with such GW products. Such a license isn't free...

But as someone else said, we can only speculate. I wouldn't even trust an ex employee, changes are that most employees know nothing of the exact license deals and the motivation of management to end a license agreement. Not only that, but do you trust someone who breaks his NDA, such disclosures are usually a big no-no in employment contracts... Even if your let go, your not allowed to disclose that kind of information.

Ps. I have a lot of FFG products, including X-wing/Armada, I have WAY more GW product, mostly because GW has been around twice as long and they generate a LOT more product then FFG does. Currently GW is winning in the race for my time/money, I recently had a spike in FFG expenses, mostly due to me seeing this coming a mile away. I started in April with completing my FFG warhammer (40k) products. This year I only bought Armada because I could get it cheap second hand, haven't bought X-wing in a while... Doesn't mean I won't but I'll need to recover from the rest of the expenses this year from both companies... They both make to much great stuff!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Finally, the videogame comparison is relatively weak. I have seen many videogamers shift heavily towards boardgames because they did recoup the gaming experience they had, while also making a social event out of it. If someone plays both video games and boardgames/wargames, then there is competition for the share of the funds. There are many ways for a company to secure those funds for itself, but pretending that the other options are not even on the radar is not one of them.

Lets use computer games: Doom

FFG did a Doom game in 2004, in 2005 can expansion, and in 2006 a reprint of the 2004 version of the game. Then 10 years nothing, completely out of print. Do you think that's because id didn't let FFG renew the license? No, it's because FFG knew that beyond what they had released those three years, the game wouldn't continue to sell well enough to justify the license and reprint costs.

10 years later there's another Doom computer game and FFG picks up the license again, maybe they'll release an expansion of the DLC for the computer game, do a reprint when it hits GotY status and that'll be it for maybe the next 10 years...

Starcraft with expansion was released in 1998. The StarCraft boardgame was released in 2007, till 2009. In 2010 SC2 was released, but FFG didn't renew the license, nor did they do anything with it related to SC2.

Just because you or I would buy a product (and we know another couple of dozen people who would), doesn't mean it's a viable product. Even worse, maybe it is profitable, but those resources could be used for more profitable games/projects. FFG already had the GoT license before it became popular as a TV series, you bet your arse that that license was a lot more expensive when/if it's up for renewal... After the series ends in another year or so, do you think it's viable for FFG to continue the license for just the LCG? The Command & Colors game (Battle for Westeros) is pretty much dead already (bought the last expansions I was missing earlier this year because I suspected it would disappear soon. The boardgame hasn't had an expansion for three years and the card/trivia games were one shots aimed at a different audience then the regular FFG games. The only 'big' game left in the GoT stable is the LCG 2E, but I expect that'll be the same deal as with Warhammer 40k: Conquest, produce/support it until the license expires. I suspect the same is happening with LotR... And eventually the same will happen with SW.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Company X not wanting customers Y to pay for service Z because that is not what they've developed is an absolutely suicidal way of doing business.

I agree, and I believe GW's financial reports demonstrate that when you consider the market position they occupy. I'll repeat, this is not the way I would run a business but based on the words from executives in public reports and sworn testimonies, this is indeed how GW runs their's. How you and I would do things in the scope of the discussion of continuing the license is irrelevant. If it was indeed GW that ended the relationship, then GW's outlook on the market, however twisted it may or may not be, is the only one that matters.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
the only thing GW can do to prevent me from switching funds to those venues is to acknowledge that those games provide me with something GW refuse to, and develop an answer to them.

Correct, but again does GW care to do that? That's the prevailing question for the discussion and a decent summation of why GW is barely treading water with help in a time when other companies are expanding. To date, that answer has been "not at all" likely due to their vision of who they're selling their product to; pursuing customers outside of that supposed demographic is something they have evidently deemed not worthwhile to date. How long they can cling to that answer will certainly be interesting to see, and as you illustrate we may have seen the first rumblings of reality breaking into the C* level in Nottingham.

Cergorach wrote:

RuneWars does not violate any license they had with GW, you might remember that FFG did Dust (after AEG) during their GW license stint. Dust Tactics is pretty much a miniature wargame, same scale as 40k. As far as I know, the only thing FFG couldn't do was make 3d board pieces that were the same scale as GW minis and GW kept some boardgame implementations for themselves. Space Hulk is a good example of that, GW did the boardgame with minis, FFG did the cardgame...

Dust Tactics did not sell unassembled models; technically they weren't even bare plastic since even the basic ones are primered. RuneWars, to my information, will require some assembly (though dramatically less than GW's) and are not primered. Not knowing the exact terms of the license, that could have placed Dust outside of the limitations imposed and as I posited earlier, could be why Dust Studios didn't sell the basic kits until after they had left the FFG umbrella (though there are other possible reasons for that as well). I would be interested to hear from anyone who knows what the exact limitations were though as that could be illuminating, but like details on the split I doubt they will be forthcoming.

Cergorach wrote:

After the series ends in another year or so, do you think it's viable for FFG to continue the license for just the LCG? The Command & Colors game (Battle for Westeros) is pretty much dead already (bought the last expansions I was missing earlier this year because I suspected it would disappear soon. The boardgame hasn't had an expansion for three years and the card/trivia games were one shots aimed at a different audience then the regular FFG games. The only 'big' game left in the GoT stable is the LCG 2E, but I expect that'll be the same deal as with Warhammer 40k: Conquest, produce/support it until the license expires. I suspect the same is happening with LotR... And eventually the same will happen with SW.

You know, at first, when they announced Runewars, I wondered, "why isn't this GoT the miniature wargame"? Then I came to the same conclusion as you.

Disney owns SW, they`re going to milk it dry, but it will take quite a few years.. I think FFG is safe from the described fading of bought IP for a decade or two

 Krinsath wrote:
I'll repeat, this is not the way I would run a business but based on the words from executives in public reports and sworn testimonies, this is indeed how GW runs their's.

Don't worry, I realize that.

 Krinsath wrote:
How you and I would do things in the scope of the discussion of continuing the license is irrelevant.

This, however, I do not agree with. You and I, as hypothetical business partners, would not issue threat over each other's main revenue source, because that is an absolute bonkers way of doing things.

You and I realize that. GW and FFG must too. We can just conclude from rational discourse that this would likely not be the reason why FFG and GW ended their partnership.
I also think that you and I realize that GW has been switching gears somewhat lately. Silver Tower, Lost Patrol, Overkill, Gorechosen... I think this is the relevant framework of analysis here, rather than the question over the content of GW's subjective view of the market. Claims of execs are just that too, claims. "We have no competition" can only ever be at all true from a very narrow, very restrictive point of view, one which I hardly believe could be the rule rather than the exception. If you and I and every bloke with 20 bucks to spend in his pocket can realize that, so should someone in Nottingham.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SnotlingPimpWagon wrote:
Disney owns SW, they`re going to milk it dry, but it will take quite a few years.. I think FFG is safe from the described fading of bought IP for a decade or two

Depends. I think the LCG is about done, or perhaps will be rebooted? I really doesn't seem to be a success at all.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
You and I realize that. GW and FFG must too. We can just conclude from rational discourse that this would likely not be the reason why FFG and GW ended their partnership.

Indeed, the entire discussion started though because people were convinced that FFG and GW had a falling out over X-Wing and the way it was competing with 40k.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
I also think that you and I realize that GW has been switching gears somewhat lately. Silver Tower, Lost Patrol, Overkill, Gorechosen... I think this is the relevant framework of analysis here, rather than the question over the content of GW's subjective view of the market.

For the general topic of "why might the license have ended" I agree. Again as a discussion of the above theory that was advanced as an explanation of that topic, not as much. At this point though I think the evidence has piled up sufficiently that absent new data we can put the "GW ended the license and X-Wing was a primary motivation" theory in the "unlikely" pile. So before I diverge one more time let's advance a new theory; why is GW suddenly producing these other titles? Strategic shift to appeal to a different segment as a precursor to a change into a more competitive entity or just a way to lower prices without lowering prices but otherwise same old-same old?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Claims of execs are just that too, claims. "We have no competition" can only ever be at all true from a very narrow, very restrictive point of view, one which I hardly believe could be the rule rather than the exception. If you and I and every bloke with 20 bucks to spend in his pocket can realize that, so should someone in Nottingham.

This I disagree with; unchecked executives wield incredible power. Kirby often compared the company to Apple as a premium product, and to me that is no small coincidence. They too fixate on their ideal customer and made mind-boggling choices when under Steve Jobs. As an example, when asked for a stylus for the iPhone and iPad from people in the market, his terse response was reportedly "everyone is born with ten styluses." Never mind that this is what the market was saying, it wasn't what HE wanted. Apple's support of video games was near non-existent reportedly because Jobs did not want Apple computers to be viewed as toys. The list goes on with that one, but it's really not related other than to illustrate the kind of person Kirby thought highly of. Kirby as Chairman and CEO also would have had similar power, and the "attitude not skill" approach would have reinforced it throughout the corporate strata. If he had a terrible idea then GW was in it to the hilt. Looking at GW's behavior for the past several years, I'm not seeing much that refutes that theory.

As we've pointed out though, we are seeing some signs that not everyone in Nottingham was quite as blinkered.

Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Monkeysloth wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:




Someone said GW plan to re-release the specialist games. Did they ever make a 40k based pen and paper RPG? I thought GW were still having books printed in China and not in house. Do they have a UK print publisher?

Yes, called Dark Heresy. They then licensed the rules and game to FFG.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000_Roleplay

Thanks.
Was this the latest version or did FFG re-release it in a with totally different mechanics?

I did actually play (probably 7 or 8 years ago) Dark Heresy - in fact I probably have a rulebook in the loft somewhere. We played for a while until the RPG group I game with decided they wanted to go back to D&D. Sci-Fi has never been their thing. For some reason, I thought it had been FFG that made it.

Manchu wrote:FFG published a long line of Dark Heresy supplements, several related/compatible games, and then published a second edition with rules based on the Only War RPG (the one that focused on playing Guardsmen). DH 2E has I think five supporting books: the GM screen/adventure module, an adventure path, and three sourcebooks.

Pretty much as Manchu said. the 1st edition of Dark Heresy was the same (though I do believe FFG's first print had errata and fixes). The reason most people don't know that GW printed the game first was FFG got the license about a year after the game was released (2008) and FFG has had it for 8 years. It does make one wonder if GW retains the rights to all new rules FFG added as even 2nd edition DH wasn't that different from the first in terms of core rules--mostly just character creation and leveling.

Another interesting thing to think about, in terms of who ended the contract, is FFGs black friday sales which they've always used as a clearance for old properties they're no longer supporting or lost the license on. The past 2 years their big sale has pretty much been Dust, Anima and GW. All the RPG supplements were going for $5, core books around $15 and the Collectors editions for $35 (if I remember that price correctly). The also clearance out a lot of the GW games that weren't big sellers (like their Horace heresy game).

I have pretty much the whole RPG line now (outside of 2nd edition DH and a few books from only war) and paid less then $200 for it. I'll use this year's to pick up what I'm missing.

Cergorach wrote:
I wouldn't even trust an ex employee, changes are that most employees know nothing of the exact license deals and the motivation of management to end a license agreement. Not only that, but do you trust someone who breaks his NDA, such disclosures are usually a big no-no in employment contracts... Even if your let go, your not allowed to disclose that kind of information.

I never said my source was an ex-employee, my source is a personal friend of Christian Petersen. You can look him up if you don't know who he is.

 Krinsath wrote:
...For the general topic of "why might the license have ended" I agree. Again as a discussion of the above theory that was advanced as an explanation of that topic, not as much. At this point though I think the evidence has piled up sufficiently that absent new data we can put the "GW ended the license and X-Wing was a primary motivation" theory in the "unlikely" pile. So before I diverge one more time let's advance a new theory; why is GW suddenly producing these other titles? Strategic shift to appeal to a different segment as a precursor to a change into a more competitive entity or just a way to lower prices without lowering prices but otherwise same old-same old?.

The licence ended because it expired and FFG didn't renew. That is the only clear fact. FFG have clearly been of this position for some time judging by the way WHRPG and the 40kRPGs support has dropped away so markedly for the last year or so.

I would posit (based upon the few know facts) that this is as a result of FFG being bought out by Asmodee (who clearly did so to acquire and exploit the Star Wars Licence). The writing and publishing of RPGs is a low margin, resource hungry activity, the resources from which would be better employed doing margin rich Star Wars related releases for as long as the Star Wars licence lasts.

I also don't see the current GW boardgames as any related factor given they have only started to appear more recently that the GWRPG slowdown at FFG and the fact that they are more or less miniature delivery systems for GW hobbyists. I don't imagine that there would be a recipricol agreement in the licence that would have prevented GW activities; beyond direct competition with any listed games/categories that might have been the basis of the licence.

I'm just not seeing the drama here.

 notprop wrote:
I'm just not seeing the drama here.

Yep, this honestly seems like a story about FFG. But this being a 40k-centric site, it's being read as a story about GW.

The bottom line is that fans read way more into this sort of thing than they should. One of the two companies (and does it really matter if it was GW or Asmodee?) decided that it was in their best interest to let the license expire. No drama. This is how licensing works.

There was quite an interesting article about FFG in the current Tabletop Gaming magazine, which featured an interview with Christian Petersen (CEO of FFG)

I can find the exact quote, but he mentioned that there was very little influence by FFG and none by Asmodee in terms of the creative output of the company. While I don't think this is ever completely true, it did seem to give an impression of it not being the case of Asmodee stepping in like some massive Decepticon, and dictating orders by megaphone about what the company is going to release or not, which has been inferred/guessed at by some posters in the thread. More, it gave the impression of the company's size now allowing it to release higher quality of game, pool resources and talent, and take risks that might otherwise not have been possible had the company been smaller.

From Ars Technica: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/09/board-game-breakup-why-the-fantasy-flightgames-workshop-split-matters/

SnotlingPimpWagon wrote:
Disney owns SW, they`re going to milk it dry, but it will take quite a few years.. I think FFG is safe from the described fading of bought IP for a decade or two

I would be really surprised if we see much support from FFG beyond 2020...

Hasbro has a license deal running till 2020, I suspect FFG has one till then as well.

Kenner produced SW action figures from 1976 to 1985, it took ten years before Hasbro produced an action figure line. It would be another four years until Episode I. What does that mean, highly solvent, highly successful toy companies waited decade before releasing another SW toyline. It took a decade for SW to become viable as a new toyline. After 9 years of Kenner Star Wars, there was no more blood in the rock.

Do you expect things to be so different for SW board/card/mini games, do you expect that after 8 years FFG will do anything differently? WotC did it for 10 years, WEG did it for 12 and didn't survive it... WotC just kept running on the Pokemon and Magic fumes...

How much X-wing do you think they can continue to sell? Sure the new movies might generate some more ships and finally dipping into the prequel might extend it even further. The game wouldn't survive a 2nd edition. The same goes for Armada. There's still a ton of potential for Imperial Assault though. The dice game might be fun, but I just have to see if it can be as successful as Dice Masters and as extensive.

Just to throw more fuel on the fire... GW and FFG both directly compete for my disposable income.

My first experience with GW was playing Talisman 2nd edition, with the Timescape expansion, which led to my first GW purchase...a blister that included these 3 guys. This was followed closely by the Rogue Trader book. My first GW boxed game purchase was the Deathwing expansion for Space Hulk (apparently not paying attention to the fact that I needed the core game to use the contents)... Anyway, it spiraled out of control from there.

I first heard of FFG when they took over Talisman and WFRP 2nd Edition from Black Industries (which likely coincides with when they first reached a licensing deal with GW). My first FFG purchase was from the WFRP line and I eventually got every bit of 3rd edition content they published. I have since expanded into their Star Wars RPG, X-Wing, Imperial Assault, and more recently Mansions of Madness 2nd edition.

I can 'maybe' spend $100 a month on games.

When a splat book hits the shelves for the Star Wars RPG, I get it. When an expansion or an ally/villain pack hits the shelves for IA, I get it (if I cant afford to get them all when they release, then I get the rest the following month). For the first 3 or 4 waves of X-wing releases, I grabbed everything...not so much any more, I tend to grab a ship here or there if it speaks to me, or if I need it for a build.

I've avoided getting Armada, despite being a huge fan of fleet combat games (still love BFG)...because I don't trust myself not to go hog-wild. I have too many games to keep up with now.

I have been spending less and less on GW (directly) over the years, despite their games being my first obsession. The rules for 40k are bloated, unbalanced, and un-fun....about the only satisfaction I get out of that game now is the hobby part, and then if I'm not building/painting for the end-goal of using those figures in a game, then I'm less motivated to actually do the work. Then, they went and blew up the Old World and completely dumped WFB as I knew and loved it...

Now, since Roundtree took the reigns over at GW...they've been pushing that nostalgia button over, and over... I've been throwing money their way more and more over the past few months. I grabbed Space Hulk in 2009, and again in 2014, and hope the rumors are true that more content will be forthcoming for that game. I picked up Lost Patrol. I finally grabbed Deathwatch: Overkill a few weeks back (Genestealer Cult, Yay! - $165, Ouch!)...and am now saving for WQ: Silver Tower. Blood Bowl will be hitting very soon, and I can only imagine they will be pulling the dollars out of my wallet for the foreseeable future if they make good on their promises to bring back Necromunda, BFG, and Epic...and even more-so if they do a full army release with multi-part kits for Genestealer Cult. I grabbed the newly re-launched White Dwarf, and am now considering a subscription...I haven't subscribed to WD since the late 90s!

Still, these new GW releases will be competing directly with FFG's new releases (for Star Wars, Cthulhu, and - if they go where I think they are going to go with the IP - Netrunner!) for my hard earned cash...and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that predicament.

As far as GW and FFG parting ways? I am still convinced they simply met at the bargaining table to negotiate a new contract, and neither would budge on terms. GW likely went in with an over-confident and inflated sense of self-worth, and tried to squeeze more licensing fees out of FFG and FFG, not really needing the 40K/Warhammer licenses called their bluff and walked. Or, the other way around... FFG demanded reduced fees, touting their proven track record for great game design and massive sales figures, and GW walked. I think that both parties still had much to gain from a continued relationship and I feel GW will suffer more from the fallout of this breakup.

 agnosto wrote:
From Ars Technica: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/09/board-game-breakup-why-the-fantasy-flightgames-workshop-split-matters/

Interesting write-up, thanks for posting the link.

I agree, I think this was done by ffg for several reasons.

#1, they milked out the 40k rpg in every aspect
#2, the lcg card games were going stale (conquest was already stopped)
#3, gw brought back specialist games, which compete with their gw board games (blood bowl, bfg, etc are returning)

FFG has a history of doing this as well. They sign a contract, make some games, sell the crap out of them, and then never renew the contract. Remember the Warcraft and starcraft board games (those were awesome btw)? Gears of War? Doom? now GW?

The only IP I see them resigning a contract with is the Disney/Star Wars lot. This is because lots of folks like star wars, not just wargamers. They can market games to card players, miniature gamers/board gamers (the not decent version and x-wing), and other board games and rpgs).

This is why FFG has remained a smaller yet successful company. They know that most board games only remain popular for so long and pull the plug before they become obsolete. This also increases the value of their oop games, some of which became quite valuable and sought after.

And I have to say, Warhammer conquest was great, otherwise most of their gw products (though good) never really compared to the real gw products. Their best products were games like Doom, Star Wars LCG, Gears of War, StarCraft, Descent, etc.