GW annual shareholder meeting - 2015 - future of Blood Bowl

[Itchen Masack]

ok if you like. But when the cows brings no calves that season, some people would wonder about the farmer?!

[sann0638]

This is getting weird.

[Loki]

What if the Farmer was a cow, farming other cows, then there would be cows the next season but they might be 'the wrong sort' of cows.

This does seems to have come a little off-piste in comparison to the OP.

ps Are you still waving at the boat Mike?


"Just smile and wave, boys. Smile and wave."

[Vanguard]

Problem is (ignoring all the legal stuff like if we did who would own it) you'd get a figure of GW, then they'd see the money raised and double the asking price.

I can't see how GW could consider actually selling the IP considering that it would obligate them to remove all references to the Old World IP (such as Skaven etc) from their current games and stop licensing it to other companies (Cyanide, Fantasy Flight, etc).
Potentially it could be licensed by someone wanting to produce an new BB box set, but from the sounds of it it would be very difficult to make it a profitable venture.

[odinsgrandson]

Problem is (ignoring all the legal stuff like if we did who would own it) you'd get a figure of GW, then they'd see the money raised and double the asking price.

Well, you'd definitely need a contract before you could get started.

As for the Blood Bowl community being too small to buy the rights, the NAF does not represent everything that Blood Bowl could be.

Did any of you guys see what happened when Heroquest got Kickstarted? They raised some holy-crap amount of money in their first couple days (then got shut down by Kickstarter because they didn't have the rights, or intend to get them... yeah). Do any of you wonder how huge it would have become if it had been totally legit?

Blood Bowl has a name. A lot of people are wary of getting into an old game that is clearly unsupported, but if it were a Kickstarter project, people would get on board. We'd see loads of new players take it up.

[nonumber]

Then we would rise like a phoenix from the ashes and crush all those who oppose us!!!! HAHAHAHQAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!1111

I didn't read the whole thread but I'm easy with whatever.

[Vanguard]

Problem is (ignoring all the legal stuff like if we did who would own it) you'd get a figure of GW, then they'd see the money raised and double the asking price.

Well, you'd definitely need a contract before you could get started.

As for the Blood Bowl community being too small to buy the rights, the NAF does not represent everything that Blood Bowl could be.

Did any of you guys see what happened when Heroquest got Kickstarted? They raised some holy-crap amount of money in their first couple days (then got shut down by Kickstarter because they didn't have the rights, or intend to get them... yeah). Do any of you wonder how huge it would have become if it had been totally legit?

Blood Bowl has a name. A lot of people are wary of getting into an old game that is clearly unsupported, but if it were a Kickstarter project, people would get on board. We'd see loads of new players take it up.

I agree that a re-launched game would see new players plus new interest for old players. However, I don't see GW doing it and I don't see them selling the IP. To me there's only one way that might work:
Create a replica game under a different name (ie what Words with Friends is to Scrabble) with the same rules but new IP. Generic stuff like Orc, Dwarfs and Elves would be fine, specific GW IP would be off-limits. So no Skaven, Slann etc. Ratmen and Frogmen would be fine tho. This would be the easiest as it would be a complete break from GW but wouldn't have the benefit of the Blood Bowl brand. I suspect that (and the loss of Warhammer IP) would be a deal breaker for some.

Licencing the IP from GW sounds like a non-starter if they're insisting on a min £500k per year. If you're budgeting licencing costs as 10%, you'd need a £5m annual turnover minimum. I just don't see that as feasible for a board game.
That said, FantasyFlight seem to be making it work although they have multiple products using the IP which may help. If anyone fancies trying to convince them to run with a new BB, that might not be a complete waste of time.

[Shteve0]

I wasn't saying the community was too small, just that the amount it would cost would price any release out of the market. It costs a lot to produce and distribute a board game; you'd either need a funding target in the $3m+ range or not have a product to offer in return at all (remember that if GW want $2m you need to raise closer to $2.3m-$2.5m just to cover off paypal and kickstarter fees). It doesn't make economic sense.

Vanguard, I believe FF aren't allowed to make miniatures...? So if it was busts or cardboard standups it's possible, but I'm not sure it would have the same appeal tbh.

[Vanguard]

Vanguard, I believe FF aren't allowed to make miniatures...? So if it was busts or cardboard standups it's possible, but I'm not sure it would have the same appeal tbh.

Yes, I've heard rumours that that is the current arrangement, hence the use of busts in Relic. Essentially a 'non-compete' clause in the world of miniatures. If I was being optimistic, then I don't think it's insurmountable, can't see anyone picking up multiple Blood Bowl teams to fill out their Age of Sigmar armies. Of course, with GW legal involved, who knows?

[Jural]

Thanks Galak- that is a very clear message, and I think it's good for Blood Bowl.

I can't imagine that the 80/20 split is correct, but they really stick to it. Based on the people I have met it's much closer to 95/5 in the opposite direction... maybe there is a core group of collectors who never go into game stores? Maybe California (where I live) is totally different from the global market?

I'm guessing not, and this thinking will get them in the end. But it will be interesting to watch.

[Chris]

It probably just means that they've worked out where the money is, and its not in the things we want them to sell.

Looking at their reports and AoS experience they may have made a few errors on that spreadsheet...

[Darkson]

On the "our customers are collectors" point, I've seen this on another website:

If I remember it correctly, the GW models have already been deemed in British courts to be toys rather than sculptures, and therefore fall under Design Rights.

Not GW figures in particular - but figures for playing games with in general (the particular case was actually Star Wars related...and Lucas can afford much better lawyers than GW).

By extension though, based on the opinion given by the high court - it would apply to GW figures as well...the rule is based off from what there primary purpose is. If you look at a company like Andrea, who is primarily interested in making miniatures for collectors - they receive copyright protection. If you look at a company like Hasbro, they are primarily interested in selling toys to be played with. Games Workshop would likely be closer to Hasbro than to Andrea. However, they have been working hard these past few years to change that narrative (the snarky side of me would like to say they are tanking their rules on purpose...).

I wonder if that's why they've switched to (trying to) claim most of their sales are to collectors?