Does Mongoose need any new licenced settings?

[TrippyHippy]

Playing a bit of a devil's advocate here, but seriously:

1) Licenses are expensive and appear prone to cancellation, etc, at unfortunate times.
2) A lot of the licensed settings make weak, or at least very sketchy game worlds to play in. They are not necessarily designed to be 'played in'.
3) Writing or playing in licensed settings isn't all that creatively fulfilling for the people involved (is it?).

I would say that this isn't true of all licences - Judge Dredd for example seems eminently playable as a game world. But then, Lord of the Rings, (for my money) isn't all that easy - it's hard to appease the cannon-police at times, and actually the major stories about the world seem to have been told already. Similarly, is a license like Firefly actually worth it, when you could just as easily use the Traveller engine to design your own 'Verse?


Just a thought - how many cool, original game settings could be written from scratch for each licensed setting purchased?

 

[Rurik]

Just a thought - how many cool, original game settings could be written from scratch for each licensed setting purchased?

How many of these cool, original settings come with an established fanbase?

While Middle may be an awkward setting in some ways there are a lot of folks who will buy it just because it is Middle Earth.

Is the cost of aquiring the license offset by the fact that the licensed setting will sell a certain number of books just because it is an established setting? I'd have to say Mongoose thinks so as they seem to like licenses a lot.

I'm sure they have a fixed idea of how much a license will drive sales before they enter into negotiations. I have no doubt they could have the Conan license if they paid enough money for it, but they don't want to lose money on the deal.

 

[Jotenbjorn]

A Conan license is very necessary, because Crom demands it.

Licenses bring in instant responses. While a new setting without a big tie-in needs to attract a following, a licensed game world already has a following. Anything with the Conan name on it will be given a shot by most big Conan fans. Star Wars has payed big dividends for WotC, and West End before them.

The problem with licensed game worlds is that it's often used as a crutch by lazy game designers. It has the LotR name on it, so it doesn't have to be good. Slap it on a bad system and you'll sell decently until all the fanboys have a copy and then you're done. Slap it on a decent system and you'll have a decent showing for good while longer, but the limits of the system will cause it to putter out after a year or two. Put it on a good system and give it support and you'll have a good run.

If you don't have name recognition, you're taking a pot shot. A bad system gets laughed at/ignored. A decent system might eventually sell a little through word of mouth. A good system needs to get a lucky break to really have a chance without a name. People have to give it a chance to see how good it really is. Take the Conan name off of the Conan RPG and I probably never would have heard of it. If Alternity had gotten either Star Wars or Star Trek then it would have been a huge success. Names are valuable things.

 

[TrippyHippy]

OK, I'll facilitate this a little more:

If Alternity had gotten either Star Wars or Star Trek then it would have been a huge success. Names are valuable things.

Didn't Star Trek fall quite spectacularly with Decipher (and apparently had previously forced Last Unicorn games into serious dept?). Similar things have happened with the LotR (and Middle Earth) brand. Why would Mongoose fare better?

Did Star Wars save WEG from their drop in status? The current Star Wars RPG seems to be chugging along reasonably nicely, but then this is after two previous editions (which fans complained about) and it's not as if Wizards isn't a big company owned by a very big company (Hasbro), of which George Lucas is a major shareholder. In effect, the Star Wars brand is barely licensed to WotC - it's practically a home brand.

Also, looking at the State of Mongoose, it appears that Mongoose looks like it's prepared to experiment with a few new settings over the next year - for their licensed systems of course. Some licenses may be more 'worth it' than others, of course. But is it really worth getting an 'X-Files' brand in order to do Codename: Veil for example?

 

[Jotenbjorn]

Didn't Star Trek fall quite spectacularly with Decipher (and apparently had previously forced Last Unicorn games into serious dept?).

Bad system. The fanboys bought, nobody else did. See the following quote from my previous reply.

The problem with licensed game worlds is that it's often used as a crutch by lazy game designers. It has the LotR name on it, so it doesn't have to be good. Slap it on a bad system and you'll sell decently until all the fanboys have a copy and then you're done.

Similar things have happened with the LotR (and Middle Earth) brand. Why would Mongoose fare better?

Because Mongoose would give it a better system. The LotR game was absolutely terrible, and all its sales were because of the name. Once all the fanboys have made their purchase, there needs to be a decent system or the game will absolutely crash.

Did Star Wars save WEG from their drop in status?

WEG's Star Wars sold well for years, it had a good long run and an extremely loyal base. If a game does as well as that game did, you can count it a big success.

The current Star Wars RPG seems to be chugging along reasonably nicely, but then this is after two previous editions (which fans complained about) and it's not as if Wizards isn't a big company owned by a very big company (Hasbro), of which George Lucas is a major shareholder. In effect, the Star Wars brand is barely licensed to WotC - it's practically a home brand.

It is in no way, shape, or form a "home brand." George Lucas owns a lot of stock in a lot of companies, that's a non-factor. He didn't do anything to develop or promote the game, it wouldn't have made a lick of difference if he didn't own a single share of Hasbro stock.

All three releases have done well because it's a strong name attached to a strong system.

Also, looking at the State of Mongoose, it appears that Mongoose looks like it's prepared to experiment with a few new settings over the next year - for their licensed systems of course. Some licenses may be more 'worth it' than others, of course. But is it really worth getting an 'X-Files' brand in order to do Codename: Veil for example?

Yes, it is. The only thing that keeps a license from being worth it is if it's overpriced. If selling an extra $500,000 in merchandise costs you $1,000,000 in licensing fees then you're obviously in a bad deal. But if you don't overpay, a strong license can bring in a lot of revenue. Do you honestly think that Mongoose wouldn't rather keep the Conan brand name?

 

[TrippyHippy]

It is in no way, shape, or form a "home brand." George Lucas owns a lot of stock in a lot of companies, that's a non-factor. He didn't do anything to develop or promote the game, it wouldn't have made a lick of difference if he didn't own a single share of Hasbro stock.

Without going into heavy handed "I Refute Thee" territory - this is not what the D20 Star Wars brand manager said when I questioned him at a GenCon seminar, a while ago (about the time of the 2nd edition release, I think). Hasbro is a big deal to LucasFilms and vice versa. As much as anything, George Lucas made his fortunes on Star Wars toys - and there was a push around the time of the Prequel movies to get the all the various forms of 'the brand' under the one Hasbro umbrella, as much as possible. The RPG license was a relatively small aspect of this push. The CCG (pulled back from Decipher) was a slightly bigger deal. Hasbro is the Star Wars (non electronic) games and toys corp.

All three releases have done well because it's a strong name attached to a strong system

Even with a cursory examination of gamer culture and opinions, it's fairly obvious that the notion of 'good system' and 'bad system' is a pretty subjective thing.

 

[Matian]

You don't need licenses, but you need to be able to liken your game to something that already exists in order to sell copies. Traveller has an established license and fanbase, Pathfinder exists for people who want to keep playing 3.5, etc, and in the case of licenses, as a consumer you have a fair idea of what you're getting.

That said, licenses don't always sell a game. The Serenity RPG is horrible. Star Wars books have been slapdash for at least the past eight months, and are averaging about 25% useful material. WotC/Hasbro is planning five versions of each core 4e book, with accompanying splat books. This is turning a lot of people off of these staples... but on to what?

You can combat a lack of licenses with visibility. Promotional material sent out to stores, Game Days, posters - something that customers can point to and ask, "What's that?". The Mongoose Infantry helps, but it's hard to get people to sign up for a demo when you don't even have a flier explaining what the game is.

Having said all this, I think there's a difference between licensed game and licensed setting that's getting mixed up here. Not to dredge up old wank, but Traveller is a good example of this. It's a licensed game with a variety of licensed settings. Sure, you could take the core mechanics and do something slightly different to avoid copyright infringement, but the license works with the game, so it's easier (and, I would argue, better) to simply get the game license and then you're free to do original (Reaver) and licensed (3I, Judge Dredd) settings.

I don't see a huge problem with reviving old gaming licenses. Settings are where things get tricky, and where a lot of your points are valid, but I don't think there's anything wrong with getting a license to use the system you want to use in the first place. You can read RPGs that you can tell are just that 10%-don't-sue-me different, and overall they fall flat, because they're not the system the designers wanted to use.

 

[Greg Smith]

Didn't Star Trek fall quite spectacularly with Decipher (and apparently had previously forced Last Unicorn games into serious dept?). Similar things have happened with the LotR (and Middle Earth) brand.

Part of the problem with Star Trek was that it followed quite closely on the heels of the LUG version.

LotR reputedly sold very well (for an RPG). Reputedly, Decipher were disapointed however that it didn't sell as well as D&d 3e. Decipher seemed to lose interest in their RPG arm after that.

Going back to the original question, 'Do Mongoose need more licences?' The answer is that they probably do - that is their business model. One they have been succesful with.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Can the business model be adapted to being even more successful?

I mean, the 'model' has been altered in any case, in the sense that Mongoose originally published d20 products under the OGL. They didn't always rely on licenses then either - they had splat books and genre books as their main staple, before turning to licenses. If the model has changed over the years, then perhaps the issue of licenses should be addressed?

 

[Greg Smith]

True, the business model might change.

I can only imagine that creating a success out of a home grown RPG is far more difficult and slow burning than the instant appeal of a licence. Altough obviously the costs will be lower.

 

[McKickaha]

There is of course a ressonable certainty of some success with a licensed product since by the time it become a "game" it has aleady survived in the market and will have fans. hence more expensive to get into but lower risk.

Together with "slow burning" issue that Greg raised there is also the risk that your home grown product bombs completely.

I suppose that possibly the optimum long term strategy is to focus on the former and also do one to a few "slow burning" home growns.

The other point is differentiating yourself from the competition. Mongoose are very well known for their love of licences.

True the licence route can, and does, bite you on occasion but I guess from a supplier perspective within a niche market, which the games market certainly is, you will have probably saturated your market by the time the licence times out naturally. The trick is determinging & negotiating the lenght of licence v its cost and likely return. Don't envy Matt in making those decisions.