Company News Beamdog's next game is a Dungeons & Dragons RPG

[Bester]

Do you really have to ask?

 

[Sothpaw]

Guess the SoD disaster didn't hurt them quite as much as I hoped. Oh well I'm sure they will double down on SJW and fail just as hard.

 

[Bustamonte]

NARRATIVE DESIGNER. So this is :inclusive: version of a writer I guess

 

[MrBuzzKill]

Seconded PLEASE DON'T MAKE BALDUR'S GATE 3. You're not the people meant to make it, even if it absolutely has to be made (which I think it isn't, considering the Bhaalspawn saga had pretty much the most satisfying and complete ending you could ask for)
If you're reading this, please don't make a game called BG3 just to spite people like me. Just forget about Baldur's Gate, please. I beg you.

 

[Lilura]

Goddammit, these fuckers are like cockroaches, they simply refuse to die.

this made me lol so fucking hard.

 

[Morality Games]

GODDAMIT!
I still don't get it why nobody pitched the idea to make solid D&D game with core rules etc with separate-sold modules AKA DLC. Literally everyone will be happy - devs, greedy shady and corrupted suits in Hasbro and perhaps, even players!
That`s a gold mine. You can even assign different devs to different modules.

That is exactly what ToEE was going to be. Unfortunately Troika crashed and burned around the time the game hit the shelves.

Also it failed twice before. Neverwinter Nights premium modules crashed and burned and NWN2's modules just did okay.

 

[vivec]

There could not be a better news. Although Beamdog is competent at arranging the set pieces they totally suck on the storytelling front. The latter is where the masses wish to go find their peace. So essentially, Beamdog is destroying D&D as a genre in computer games. Hopefully this will kill the brand and make the licensing cheaper for more competent people.

 

[Grubba]

Hopefully this will kill the brand and make the licensing cheaper for more competent people.

Something doesn't make sense here. Beamdog and n-Space aren't (weren't) exactly heavyweights in the industry with loads of cash to burn and yet they still somehow managed to acquire the rights. One might think that the D&D license for computer games is quite expensive but maybe that's just not the case anymore. Maybe there's some other kind of arrangement going on between WotC/Hasbro and these companies. Or maybe you're correct and it IS expensive, but Beamdog and n-Space were just good at convincing investors into ponying up the cash. Maybe someone else can shed lights on this?

 

[FuriousGamer87]

Hopefully this will kill the brand and make the licensing cheaper for more competent people.

Something doesn't make sense here. Beamdog and n-Space aren't (weren't) exactly heavyweights in the industry with loads of cash to burn and yet they still somehow managed to acquire the rights. One might think that the D&D license for computer games is quite expensive but maybe that's just not the case anymore. Maybe there's some other kind of arrangement going on between WotC/Hasbro and these companies. Or maybe you're correct and it IS expensive, but Beamdog and n-Space were just good at convincing investors into ponying up the cash. Maybe someone else can shed lights on this?

Probably a combination of angel investors and snake people.

 

[Melcar]

Jews were involved I bet.

 

[Telengard]

Something doesn't make sense here. Beamdog and n-Space aren't (weren't) exactly heavyweights in the industry with loads of cash to burn and yet they still somehow managed to acquire the rights. One might think that the D&D license for computer games is quite expensive but maybe that's just not the case anymore. Maybe there's some other kind of arrangement going on between WotC/Hasbro and these companies. Or maybe you're correct and it IS expensive, but Beamdog and n-Space were just good at convincing investors into ponying up the cash. Maybe someone else can shed lights on this?

Well, contracts for licenses aren't as simple as purchasing something in the store:

Daniel Chisholm, Product Management, Hulu
2.7k Views
First, for clarity, I'll assume we are referring to inbound licensing to the game publisher rather than outbound to a film or TV show.

From a creative perspective, licensing flexibility is completely dependent on (1) the size of the IP and the licensor, (2) the leverage of the game publisher, and (3) the needs of the game in question. Traditionally, all uses of the IP (storyline, marks, logos, characters, etc) have approval rights by the licensor - but keep in mind, it all boils down to a contract, and the adage is true: 'everything's negotiable' for the right price. Also, the more there's a synergy between the game and the original IP the more likely the licensor will be more lenient.

During production of the game, the licensor will take advantage of those approval rights usually by having specific approvals attached to a milestone schedule in the agreement. Approvals can take a long time if the agreement does not sufficiently address approval timeframes. This can be scary since publishers have already locked in a lot of other parts of the production process that can't be moved, the biggest being the marketing campaign (as well as often having a day and date launch with the core IP, e.g. the opening weekend of the next Batman movie).

From a financial & contractual standpoint, license deals are very simple. Both parties agree on a royalty percentage (typical ranges are 10-15%) paid to the licensor with the licensee warranting a minimum guarantee (and often an advance of that MG) anywhere from $50k to well into the millions for a AAA game ('tentpole' to use film industry parlance) depending on the overall size of the deal. Royalties are typically taken off net.

Chia-Chi Li, Managing Attorney of Technology Transactions at Tencent
2k Views
There are several types of in-licensing of game content: A) in-licensing where the licensor will provide to licensee a game to distribute and/or operate; generally the licensor will develop the game according to the license agreement, B) in-licensing where the licensee develops the game using the licensor IP, and C) in-licensing where licensor and licensee co-develop the game. In cases A and B the non-developing party may have some limited say in the final product.

For type A, the licensor may have a continuing obligation to develop and maintain the game content, especially for online FTP games. The licensee generally has an obligation to distribute or operate the game.

For type B, the licensee's development is generally subject to some type of subjective approval of the licensor. In general, licensors see the IP as their "crown jewels" and don't want you to sully their IP. The licensee may limit the approval right of the licensor by writing into the license agreement specific elements that will be included, limit the scope of the approval rights (e.g., artistic, not technical, only for elements that materially impact the brand, etc).

In all cases, key business points include: specific scope of the license (length of term, territory, platform), development milestones (timing and required components), IP ownership (who owns what, especially after the term), game data ownership, royalty rate, minimum guarantee, license fee, financial audit rights, marketing rights and obligations, rights of first refusal and other preemptive rights, and operational SLAs (online games).

So, to sum up, you can cut a deal for a license like D&D by going to Hasbro and agreeing to assume all financial risk for the game's development, plus giving them first cut of the profits and a percentage thereafter. That, with a small payout upfront to ensure that they get some money no matter what. While you get nothing if you fail, and also get nothing if you're just a short ways into profit (since they get first cut). The only basic requirement for cutting a deal for the license is being dumb enough to sign the contract for such a license with a poor sales history but high expectations from its fans.