# Disney Sniffing Around Hasbro?



## Morrus (Nov 6, 2012)

I don't know what to make of this, but both MTV and Nerd Bastards are talking of a rumour that Disney - in the wake of the Lucasfilm purchase - are looking to buy Hasbro.  Hasbro, as you may know, is a massive toy company, and bought Wizards of the Coast about a decade ago; and WotC owns Dungeons & Dragons.

MTV's story is here:
OK folks, take this one with a grain of plastic for the time being. Unless you’ve been under a rock, you’ve heard that Disney acquired Lucasfilm for roughly $4 billion last week and Marvel for around the same price a few years prior. Well, we have it on good authority that serious discussions are happening at the highest levels of both Disney and Hasbro to fold the largest toy and game company on the planet into the Mouse.

From what we’re told, these are still just discussions at this point, but serious enough that something could be announced at any time and create ripples throughout the entertainment industry. The Lucasfilm acquisition has been reported as taking as few as 6 months to complete. On the other hand, Disney Chairman and CEO Bob Iger has until 2015 on his current contract, and he waited about 3 years in between the acquisitions of Marvel and Lucasfilm, so we may be without firm news on this for some time.

The acquisition would give Disney the rights to Transformers, G.I. Joe, Dungeons and Dragons, Beyblade, Battleship, Nerf, and Magic: The Gathering among several dozen other game titles and IP. When you add Marvel and Star Wars to that list it’s a pretty comprehensive lock on boy’s entertainment; a far cry from a few years back when Disney was heavily criticized for losing its grip on boys.

Hasbro holds the toy and table top game licenses to the now Disney-owned Star Wars and Marvel, and has shown great success with those franchises, as well as exploiting their own IP across film, television, and games. We’ve already seen some cross-pollination with Star Wars Transformers and Monopoly. And Hasbro isn’t shy from M&A having scooped up Parker Brothers, Kenner, Tonka, Milton Bradley, and Wizards of the Coast over the years. So from an outsider’s perspective this makes a ton of sense for all involved.
So if this turns out to be true, what will it mean for these franchises and their homes, and what will it mean for The Hub, the Hasbro-Discovery JV cable net?

The Transformers and G.I. Joe films are with Paramount, but as we saw with Marvel, that could easily change. The animated series are with The Hub, along with Beyblade, Kaijudo, and others, and it’s not clear how that channel would fit into Disney’s plans. They could be folded into Disney XD, and the girls brands folded into Disney Channel. On the comics’ side this would be bad news for IDW, just as the Marvel acquisition was for BOOM! and the Lucasfilm acquisition is likely to be for Dark Horse.

But here’s hoping to a Marvel vs. Star Wars vs. Transformers vs. G.I. Joe vs. D&D vs. Bronies video game! (So yeah, this means Disney would also own My Little Pony, and there would be plenty of cross-over material there, too.)​Nerd Bastard's story is here:
Less than a week after the bombshell announcement of Disney’s acquisition of Lucasfilm, it seems that the House of Mouse is still in the mood to buy, and they may be shopping in the toy aisle.
The rumor du jour is that Disney has opened negotiations to buy Hasbro, the largest toy and game company in the world. Under the Hasbro banner are numerous billion-dollar franchise brands like Transformers, G.I. Joe, Monopoly, Nerf, Beyblade, Magic: The Gathering, and Dungeons & Dragons. Over the years, Hasbro itself has absorbed other toy companies like Parker Brothers, Kenner, Tonka, Milton Bradley, and Wizards of the Coast, so I guess with no more toy companies to monopolize, their only choice left is to be absorbed by another monopoly.

Sound implausible? If there are negotiations, they’ve only just gotten underway, but it reportedly only took six months for Disney and Lucasfilm to come to an agreement. The move would make sense for Disney, as Hasbro does produce the Star Wars line of action figures, plus they’d get access to hundreds of characters and licenses that could add billions to their coffers, and not just the obvious ones like Optimus Prime and Cobra Commander. Might Cabbage-Patch Kids, Mr Potato Head and My Little Pony soon become permanent parts of the Disney world? Time will tell.

I know we joke about Disney taking over the world, but it seems that the entire enterprise is no joke to the people in charge: Disney means to take over the world. Or at least the nerd parts.
​


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 6, 2012)

http://nerdbastards.com/2012/11/05/rumor-patrol-is-disney-eying-hasbro-for-next-acquisition/


----------



## sabrinathecat (Nov 6, 2012)

Well, either Disney's toys would vastly improve, or Hasbro would start to majorly suck.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 6, 2012)

Anthropomorphic Mice, Ducks and Dogs would be core races in the first edition to follow acquisition...


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 6, 2012)

I wonder if they can avoid lawsuits when the Mousebard supplement comes out.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Nov 6, 2012)

Wouldn't be Chaosium a much more fitting target for takeover? Ducks have a long history in Runequest...


----------



## Lanefan (Nov 6, 2012)

If true, and if it happens, the chances of a decent D&D movie someday being made increase exponentially.

Lanefan


----------



## sabrinathecat (Nov 6, 2012)

and it might only suck 1/2 as much!


----------



## dd.stevenson (Nov 6, 2012)

Morrus said:


> The acquisition would give Disney the rights to Transformers, G.I. Joe, Dungeons and Dragons, Beyblade, Battleship, Nerf, and Magic: The Gathering among several dozen other game titles and IP. When you add Marvel and Star Wars to that list it’s a pretty comprehensive lock on boy’s entertainment; a far cry from a few years back when Disney was heavily criticized for losing its grip on boys.




I'm not sure whether to be reassured or frightened by the fact that D&D was mentioned alongside those other IPs.


----------



## jeffh (Nov 6, 2012)

Contrary to the story quoted here, Hasbro doesn't own the game rights to Star Wars, FFG does.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 6, 2012)

jeffh said:


> Contrary to the story quoted here, Hasbro doesn't own the game rights to Star Wars, FFG does.




Yeah, that info's a bit outdated.  Still, I imagine there will be a lot of SW licensing changes over the next few years as existing licenses expire, are withdrawn, or are bought back (depending on the individual contracts). The SW tabletop gaming stuff probably doesn't even register to them at this stage - it's the _toys_ that are big.


----------



## Lwaxy (Nov 6, 2012)

I'm already not happy about Disney getting the rights to SW, them buying Hasbro would really make me start hating on them I guess.


----------



## delericho (Nov 6, 2012)

I suspect it's probably not a good thing (in the longer term) to have these giant, faceless corporations hoovering everything up. Especially as they tend to be extremely aggressive about IP - meaning that anything even close to their properties is a risky venture. That's really not good for innovation, for artists, or, ultimately, for customers.

However, I'm not sure it matters _which_ giant, faceless corporation owns all these things - there's no reason to think Disney would be any better or worse for D&D (or Transformers, or the rest of my childhood) than Hasbro already are.


----------



## Cergorach (Nov 6, 2012)

jeffh said:


> Contrary to the story quoted here, Hasbro doesn't own the game rights to Star Wars, FFG does.




Neither does FFG, they have a license, it's unknown whether that is an exclusive license or not. Lucas Arts still owns the game rights to SW, they just licensed some parts out.

It also seems that FFG has only a license for RPGs, card games, and miniature games, and not boardgames. X-wing is listed under miniature games on the FFG. http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=2528

So the statement that Hasbro has a license to produce SW boardgames might not be untrue.

As for the whole Disney thing... When I heard that Disney gobbled up Lucas Arts the first thing that popped in my head was "When will they gobble up Hasbro?" for all the reasons mentioned. Do I think this is bad? Yes and no. Bad because Disney has been historically the company that has been lobbying the US for greater and greater extensions on copyright. Not bad because when I look at how Marvel is doing the last couple of years is nothing short of amazing, whether that is due to Disney or despite Disney is the question...


----------



## Klaus (Nov 6, 2012)

D&D Roller Coaster, anyone?


----------



## Morrus (Nov 6, 2012)

delericho said:


> I suspect it's probably not a good thing (in the longer term) to have these giant, faceless corporations hoovering everything up. Especially as they tend to be extremely aggressive about IP - meaning that anything even close to their properties is a risky venture. That's really not good for innovation, for artists, or, ultimately, for customers.




I don't see that it really matters in terms of old properties _Star Wars_ and stuff. More SW films is good for customers; no more SW films is the same as it is now. 

For artists and innovation? It doesn't affect artists innovating with new stuff.

In terms of D&D - I wonder how different Disney would be to Hasbro. I mean, on our scale they're both giant behemoths. I guess third-party products might - in the long run - be affected.  But there aren't many 3rd party D&D products these days anyway.


----------



## Klaus (Nov 6, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I don't see that it really matters in terms of old properties _Star Wars_ and stuff. More SW films is good for customers; no more SW films is the same as it is now.
> 
> For artists and innovation? It doesn't affect artists innovating with new stuff.
> 
> In terms of D&D - I wonder how different Disney would be to Hasbro. I mean, on our scale they're both giant behemoths. I guess third-party products might - in the long run - be affected.  But there aren't many 3rd party D&D products these days anyway.



At the very least Disney's lawyers could grab back the rights to D&D movies, eh?


----------



## Kaodi (Nov 6, 2012)

Oops. I just posted a thread on this in Media which could probably be deleted now. 

In any case, sooner or later anti-trust is going to come back into style. Up here in Canada we have already had the CRTC, which is our media regulator, nix a takeover of Astral Media by (our) Bell because they figured it would give Bell too much control over content that both they and the other telecompanies rely on. Someone could look at a Hasbro deal and ask how much control over popular entertainment is too much for Disney to be allowed to have. Once traditional media companies and video game companies begin to merge, then you will know things are really getting dicey.


----------



## delericho (Nov 6, 2012)

Morrus said:


> I don't see that it really matters in terms of old properties _Star Wars_ and stuff. More SW films is good for customers; no more SW films is the same as it is now.




Agreed.



> In terms of D&D - I wonder how different Disney would be to Hasbro. I mean, on our scale they're both giant behemoths. I guess third-party products might - in the long run - be affected.  But there aren't many 3rd party D&D products these days anyway.




And agreed.



> For artists and innovation? It doesn't affect artists innovating with new stuff.




Here I don't agree, though. Sure, as long as you're being truly unique and innovative you're in the clear, but there are very few _genuinely_ new ideas out there.

But the issue comes when you're working in something _close_ to existing IP - a story about a schoolboy wizard, or something about giant transforming robots. Provided you stay clear of the actual IP owned by the various people, you _should_ be fine. After all, Hogwarts is nothing more than an archetypal boarding school crossed with magic, and Rowling can't claim ownership over either concept - only her _specific_ implementation.

However, if you were to actually write a story about such a thing (and achieve enough success to be noticed), there's a real good chance that Rowling's people would send a C&D. At which point you'd very quickly find your backers pulling the plug on their involvement in your project. There wouldn't even need to be a case - faced with just the risk of losing, all but the bravest of backers would walk away.

(Also, see the way TSR hounded Gary Gygax after he left. Several times he tried to publish a game, only to see TSR sue. At which point, either his publishers just pulled the plug or, in the best case, they'd agree to settle. Of course, as part of the settlement, TSR agreed to buy out the game... which they promptly shelved. The net effect was that GG couldn't publish a game - which wasn't good for him, wasn't good for us, and actually wasn't all that good for TSR either.)


----------



## delericho (Nov 6, 2012)

Klaus said:


> At the very least Disney's lawyers could grab back the rights to D&D movies, eh?




I'm surprised Hasbro haven't tried to buy them back already. Though maybe they have - it's possible that Courtney Solomon is determined not to sell them and/or he wants more money than Hasbro believes the rights to be worth.


----------



## JeffB (Nov 6, 2012)

PnP Epic Mickey!!!!!!!


----------



## Sammael (Nov 6, 2012)

Perhaps Disney can repair some of the recent damage done to the Transformers franchise...


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 6, 2012)

And the secret new adventuring class is!



Spoiler



Mouseketeer


----------



## jasper (Nov 6, 2012)

MIC
M
I
C
KEY
K
E
Y!
THA
T
H
A
C0
C
0
Mickey ThAc0!


----------



## Someone (Nov 6, 2012)

So, this means we'll be having D&D stats for Iron Man and lightsabers?


----------



## Pour (Nov 6, 2012)

I, for one, embrace our new overlords! Should this all pan out, I mean what's left? Mattel? Cartoon Network? Nickalodeon? Hm, He-Man, She-Ra, Samurai Jack, Space Ghost, Herculoids, Thundarr the Barbarian, Legends of Korra... sold!


----------



## avin (Nov 6, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Anthropomorphic Mice, Ducks and Dogs would be core races in the first edition to follow acquisition...




I support Donald Duck as an official D&D NPC.



Lanefan said:


> If true, and if it happens, the chances of a decent D&D movie someday being made increase exponentially.
> Lanefan




QFT.



Lwaxy said:


> I'm already not happy about Disney getting the rights to SW, them buying Hasbro would really make me start hating on them I guess.




As far away from George Lucas late ideas as possible is good. 



Klaus said:


> D&D Roller Coaster, anyone?




Thread winner.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 6, 2012)

avin said:


> As far away from George Lucas late ideas as possible is good.





I recall reading once about a galaxy far, far away that might suit the purpose.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 6, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> If true, and if it happens, the chances of a decent D&D movie someday being made increase exponentially.
> 
> Lanefan



Things we know about it already:

1) it will have a princess.

2) it will have singable music



> Oh this is the knight
> He's a beautiful night
> and we call him Bill of Notte
> look at the skies
> ...




3) it will not be hack n slash, it will be about character development

4) any mother in law will be bad

5) there will be lots of toys...though probably not anything 28mm.


----------



## marv (Nov 6, 2012)

Morrus said:


> But there aren't many 3rd party D&D products these days anyway.




Ah, but you forget the DnD industry leader, protected by a solid open license. I am speaking of course about Paizo. DnD lives in Pathfinder by a small company that cares about gamers.


----------



## Dragonbait (Nov 6, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Anthropomorphic Mice, Ducks and Dogs would be core races in the first edition to follow acquisition...




Well then.. Take my money!


----------



## Cybit (Nov 6, 2012)

marv said:


> Ah, but you forget the DnD industry leader, protected by a solid open license. I am speaking of course about Paizo. DnD lives in Pathfinder by a small company that cares about gamers.




More interesting note: what happens to the OGL?  Depending on how it was written / implemented, would a takeover of WotC by another company allow the OGL to be removed?  Would depend on how strongly written the copyleft was?


----------



## Dragonblade (Nov 7, 2012)

Pour said:


> I, for one, embrace our new overlords! Should this all pan out, I mean what's left? Mattel? Cartoon Network? Nickalodeon? Hm, He-Man, She-Ra, Samurai Jack, Space Ghost, Herculoids, Thundarr the Barbarian, Legends of Korra... sold!




Cartoon Network is owned by Warner Bros already. Nickelodeon and its properties (now including the Ninja Turtles) is owned by Viacom, a gigantic conglomerate in their own right.

Disney acquiring them would require their parents to spin them off. Or a full blown merger. Disney buying Hasbro or Lucasfilm probably won't move the needle on any anti-trust radar despite their domination of geek culture. But Disney merging with Time Warner or Viacom certainly would.


----------



## Dragonblade (Nov 7, 2012)

Cybit said:


> More interesting note: what happens to the OGL?  Depending on how it was written / implemented, would a takeover of WotC by another company allow the OGL to be removed?  Would depend on how strongly written the copyleft was?




No. OGL can never be revoked. And frankly, the tabletop side of D&D is a tiny blip on the radar for Hasbro now. It would be the same with Disney.

What is more interesting to me is that FFG and MWP could find the rug pulled out from under them in terms of their rights to do a SW or Marvel RPG. WotC had those rights in the past and let them lapse because the cost benefit wasn't there, but getting them back for free would have to be pretty attractive to the gaming group at WotC I would think. Especially with new SW and Marvel movies on the horizon.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 7, 2012)

Cybit said:


> More interesting note: what happens to the OGL?  Depending on how it was written / implemented, would a takeover of WotC by another company allow the OGL to be removed?  Would depend on how strongly written the copyleft was?




Not being a lawyer I have to go with, I dont think they can... BUT the mouse lawyers are some of the best in the world, so if anyone can, they can.

On a personal level I would be so happy if they could, becuse if I never heard someone claim pathfinder was the one true d&d again I could die happy...


----------



## Nellisir (Nov 7, 2012)

Cybit said:


> More interesting note: what happens to the OGL?  Depending on how it was written / implemented, would a takeover of WotC by another company allow the OGL to be removed?  Would depend on how strongly written the copyleft was?




Nothing.  Disney cannot retroactively remove the OGL.  They might possibly be able to attack Pathfinder some other way, but they can't remove the OGL.  Version 1.a was an authorized version, and as such it can be used forever.



> 2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. *No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.*
> 4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a* perpetual*, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.
> 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use *any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License*.



In short, as long as you follow the license (which is obvious), it is perpetual (does not expire), cannot be replaced (you may use any authorized version, including this one), and cannot be altered.

Disney could release an update to the OGL, but the existing version remains, and the two would exist in parallel.

I am not a lawyer, but the language is pretty simple, which is part of why it works.  There aren't loopholes to exploit.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Nov 7, 2012)

you're talking about the company that is the forefront defender/offender in pushing back the open license on when something becomes public domain because they don't want to give up profits on Mickey mouse. If they decide they want to destroy something, they will. Because they have enough money to keep throwing at it in time, effort, and if necessary, buying judges like MCI did when they took out MA Bell. Disney has the $ to take the case to the supreme court, even if their case has no merit whatsoever. Only a very few companies could stand up to them, and they are not in competition.

These are the same people who managed to fight off a suit by the people who invented Winnie the Pooh. That was almost as egregious a judgement as Sid Meyers losing the rights for Civilization to the computer game company.


----------



## Nellisir (Nov 7, 2012)

sabrinathecat said:


> you're talking about the company that is the forefront defender/offender in pushing back the open license on when something becomes public domain because they don't want to give up profits on Mickey mouse. If they decide they want to destroy something, they will. Because they have enough money to keep throwing at it in time, effort, and if necessary, buying judges like MCI did when they took out MA Bell. Disney has the $ to take the case to the supreme court, even if their case has no merit whatsoever. Only a very few companies could stand up to them, and they are not in competition.
> 
> These are the same people who managed to fight off a suit by the people who invented Winnie the Pooh. That was almost as egregious a judgement as Sid Meyers losing the rights for Civilization to the computer game company.



Nothing like surrendering before the enemy has even arrived on the field.

As far as your Pooh example, bluntly put, you're misleading and rather wrong.  AA Milne invented Winnie the Pooh, not Stephen Slesinger.  In 2007, Disney actually lost to Slesinger, but Slesinger did have another case against Disney thrown out (apparently on procedure & literally garbage-picking).  Maybe that's what you're thinking of.  In 2009 (something) was revised, revisited, or otherwise, and Disney regained trademark and copyright rights, but has to pay royalties to Slesinger.

Do you have an argument other than "Disney has money and the law doesn't matter"?

Or why Disney would even care?  It would be a big effort for no gain.  Disney would not make money off of repealing the OGL.  WotC didn't do it, Hasbro didn't do it.  I've heard no reason for Disney to bother.

WotC/Hasbro/Disney DOES NOT NEED TO USE the OGL.  People keep screwing this up.  The OGL does not control your use of your own copyrighted material.  It does not remove, void, or invalidate copyright.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 7, 2012)

marv said:


> Ah, but you forget the DnD industry leader




I have not.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Nov 7, 2012)

Surrendering before entering the field. Against Disney. Yeah. That is something to stand up to, if you like tilting at windmills. I have better things to do with my time.


----------



## Mark CMG (Nov 7, 2012)

Some additional commentary of note -

http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=6dd4cbb8-d936-444a-8f2b-6869a1e26688


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Nov 7, 2012)

I think it's great news (ditto for their actual purchase of Lucasfilm).

Assuming Disney does buy Hasbro, all it will take is the right executive to look at the D&D IP and the next thing is we could have a decent Pixar-style animated D&D movie with some great toys that will double as minis!

It's all good.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 7, 2012)

The main things Disney has done throwiing its clout in IP law is defending its IP and lobbying for the extension of duration of copyright and trademark.


----------



## Lwaxy (Nov 7, 2012)

Which is one more reason for me to strongly dislike them. Copyright law already goes way too far and the world doesn't need any more of that nonsense. 

Get away from me evil! 

As for SW, I'd rather see it over and done with. So many things got messed up I rather not see anyone else making it worse.


----------



## delericho (Nov 7, 2012)

Dragonblade said:


> No. OGL can never be revoked. And frankly, the tabletop side of D&D is a tiny blip on the radar for Hasbro now. It would be the same with Disney.




Yep. Besides, even if they _did_ notice the OGL decide to "do something about it", there are quicker, easier, and more effective ways to do so.

The truth is that there are exactly 2 OGL publishers of any consequence to Disney/Hasbro/WotC: Paizo (with Pathfinder - rivalling D&D), and Green Ronin (with M&M/DC Superheroes - rivalling Marvel). Everyone else is almost completely irrelevant _even in terms of the RPG market_.

So if they really want to (effectively) kill the OGL, they just need to add two more acquisitions. And while the owners might not want to sell, I daresay they could be moved by a sufficiently large number of zeroes on the cheque.



> What is more interesting to me is that FFG and MWP could find the rug pulled out from under them in terms of their rights to do a SW or Marvel RPG. WotC had those rights in the past and let them lapse because the cost benefit wasn't there, but getting them back for free would have to be pretty attractive to the gaming group at WotC I would think. Especially with new SW and Marvel movies on the horizon.




The license probably ties up the rights for a number of years, most likely with clauses specifying a number of products (and some sort of 'approval' clause), so it's unlikely that Disney could just yank them back. However, I suppose there's a possibility of buying out the license.

Of course, all of this assumes that Disney even notice D&D or RPGs, which seems unlikely. And, frankly, I rather hope that they don't, because my gut feeling is that the likely outcome of that is not "WotC get lots more game licenses to play with", but rather "D&D isn't profitable enough, so they cancel it."


----------



## Kaodi (Nov 7, 2012)

avin said:


> I support Donald Duck as an official D&D NPC.




YES! Those who know me know I quack,  .


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 7, 2012)

Cybit said:


> More interesting note: what happens to the OGL?  Depending on how it was written / implemented, would a takeover of WotC by another company allow the OGL to be removed?  Would depend on how strongly written the copyleft was?



No.  I don't know why that keeps coming up; the notion that the OGL can be changed, cancelled, redacted or limited in any way has been soundly rebutted for over a decade.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 7, 2012)

Hobo said:


> No.  I don't know why that keeps coming up; the notion that the OGL can be changed, cancelled, redacted or limited in any way has been soundly rebutted for over a decade.




Well I dont know about anyone else, but in my case it was wishful thinking


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 7, 2012)

sabrinathecat said:


> Surrendering before entering the field. Against Disney. Yeah. That is something to stand up to, if you like tilting at windmills. I have better things to do with my time.



Between this and the Lucasfilm thread, it appears that those "better things" are nothing more than unsubstantiated, unsubstantiable, and generally uninformed generic griping about Disney overall.  In other words, what makes the windmills you're already tilting at better than this one?  Tilting at one windmill is more or less equivalent to tilting at any other.

Substantive conversation--even speculative--on the other hand, would _actually_ be a better use of time.  :shrug:


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Nov 7, 2012)

avin said:


> I support Donald Duck as an official D&D NPC.
> (snip)




He already has been... in _Dragon 60_:


----------



## Azgulor (Nov 7, 2012)

So after years of hearing people decrying the evils of Hasbro corporate suits micromanaging WotC into any of the perceived ills the D&D brand has suffered, unreasonable profit expectations, and ham-fisted protection of intellectual property, the mere rumor of Disney acquiring Hasbro and we’ve got “fellow gamers” actively hoping for Disney to find some way to bring a legal hammer down to eliminate all OGL games.

*Explain to me again how eliminating Pathfinder, Mutants & Masterminds, the Marvel Superhero RPG, and others is good for the hobby?* 

For the Hasbro-evil-empire conspiracy theorists, how would the acquisition of WotC into an even larger corporation alleviate all of the “evils” of corporate ownership?

Yeah, glad all that edition warring on this website is behind us now….


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 7, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Well I dont know about anyone else, but in my case it was wishful thinking



You wish that the OGL would go away?  What in the world for?  Who could possibly benefit from that?


----------



## gamerprinter (Nov 7, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Well I dont know about anyone else, but in my case it was wishful thinking




Even if the OGL conflicted with WotC during the 3x era, that's now in the past. Since you can't go back in time, there is no affect to current WotC products or business - so the existence of the OGL hurts no one.

I cannot think of a good reason for eliminating the OGL, especially for gamers, since the OGL provides a means to continue to publish varying game products from many companies - it's a win/win for publishers and gamers everywhere.

If you don't want to play an OGL product, don't, but it's existence does not affect you. What reason is there to be wishful that it was gone. There would be no benefit, only loss.


----------



## MoonSong (Nov 7, 2012)

Well I have the wishfull thinking of once disney owns hasbro, it decides to keep the media rights for D&D and license out the actual game publishing rights to some other company such as Paizo or White Wolf.


----------



## CAFRedblade (Nov 7, 2012)

If Disney were/will buy Hasbro, it'll probably do what it's done for the other major acquisitions of Marvel, Pixar, and now Lucasfilm.  Make it a subsidiary, who reports up the chain, eliminate some job duplication, put some money behind it to help things progress in development, but mostly leave the business decisions to the head(s) of the subsidiary.  
As long as they are making money, all is good.  
Will we see more cross development of product, most likely, especially in the toy department area.  But owning the license to multiple products reduces development fees for those products.  Think Hasbro no longer having to pay Lucasfilm to make(license) the StarWars toys, as Disney would own both companies.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 7, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> Even if the OGL conflicted with WotC during the 3x era, that's now in the past. Since you can't go back in time, there is no affect to current WotC products or business - so the existence of the OGL hurts no one.
> 
> I cannot think of a good reason for eliminating the OGL, especially for gamers, since the OGL provides a means to continue to publish varying game products from many companies - it's a win/win for publishers and gamers everywhere.
> 
> If you don't want to play an OGL product, don't, but it's existence does not affect you. What reason is there to be wishful that it was gone. There would be no benefit, only loss.






Hobo said:


> You wish that the OGL would go away?  What in the world for?  Who could possibly benefit from that?




Well I loved Mutants and Masterminds, I belive they are doing better work by becomeing less like D20... However for the last few years piazo fans (and even one employee) have tried to claim there D&D retroclone is the true D&D.  I have gotten very sick of hearing the edtion wariing that now has become system waring. 

WHEN I sit to play a game I have a large group of games to choose from, rifts, shadow run, deadlands, WoD, Rifts, Star wars D6, plus a few others... or D&D... I liked alot of what piazo did in 3.5, and think they have some of (if not the) best adventures. However I am sick of being called out on pathfinder being true d&d, and 4e is dune. 

Now in my mind Pathfinder is the leading retroclone, the most successful retro clone, and it has the best support of any retroclone, but when I hate the spite and bile thrown at 4e (it is even a little at nexr) and WoTC. 

I would be just as happy if every jerk woke up tomorro saying "oh man why do I make others so angry" but I think the odds of that and the ogl going away are about the same


----------



## gamerprinter (Nov 7, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Well I loved Mutants and Masterminds, I belive they are doing better work by becomeing less like D20... However for the last few years piazo fans (and even one employee) have tried to claim there D&D retroclone is the true D&D. I have gotten very sick of hearing the edtion wariing that now has become system waring.




There will always be those who enjoy beating a dead horse and never leave the Edition Wars behind.

While I am certainly a Pathfinder fan, in fact I'm a 3PP and freelance designer/cartographer for that system - I have no illusions of it being D&D. It's like D&D, plays very closely to 3.5, but IMO, already it's own thing, a separate system altogether. In fact, I have no desire to play D&D ever again, as it's PF for me, all the way.

I stopped listening/paying attention to the Edition Warriors a long time ago.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Nov 8, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The main things Disney has done throwiing its clout in IP law is defending its IP and lobbying for the extension of duration of copyright and trademark.




And it's pretty funny how that's turned around and bit them several times, e.g. the Winnie the Pooh trademark.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 8, 2012)

Live by the sword, die by the sword.


----------



## delericho (Nov 8, 2012)

Azgulor said:


> Explain to me again how eliminating Pathfinder, Mutants & Masterminds, the Marvel Superhero RPG, and others is good for the hobby?




It isn't. At the current point in time it would be good for WotC, but it would be a disaster for everyone else.

And, incidentally, the OGL was even a good thing _for WotC_ right up until the point where they stopped using it. 3.5e had been (and at the time of cancellation, was still) phenomenally successful, and the OGL and third-party support was no small part of that.

Unfortunately, WotC mistook all the sales of third-party products as sales that they had 'lost' and that they thought rightfully belonged to them, so they decided on a non-OGL 4e. At which point the OGL stopped being of benefit to them, and turned into the worst weapon that could be used against them.

(Even so, that wouldn't have been a major problem if they had only left the magazine licenses with Paizo. Not renewing those licenses led directly to the creation of Pathfinder, and turned D&D's biggest cheerleaders into their #1 competitor. And it's very unlikely that any other company that Paizo would have been able to fill the 'Pathfinder' niche as effectively.)



CAFRedblade said:


> If Disney were/will buy Hasbro, it'll probably do what it's done for the other major acquisitions of Marvel, Pixar, and now Lucasfilm.  Make it a subsidiary, who reports up the chain, eliminate some job duplication, put some money behind it to help things progress in development, but mostly leave the business decisions to the head(s) of the subsidiary.
> As long as they are making money, all is good.




Yep, this is exactly right. By far the most likely outcome (for D&D) of any merger will be "no change" - the Disney execs are no more likely to even notice the RPG than the Hasbro execs do currently.

With both companies, there is a pretty small chance that it will be noticed. At which point, what happens depends on whether it happens to be the 'right' person who notices it and the prevailing conditions in the company at the time. If the 'right' person notices and conditions are good, this could result in any number of good things. If the 'wrong' person notices, or the company feels the need to "concentrate on our core business", then the result is cancellation.

But that's true whether D&D is owned by Hasbro or by Disney.



GMforPowergamers said:


> Well I loved Mutants and Masterminds, I belive they are doing better work by becomeing less like D20... However for the last few years piazo fans (and even one employee) have tried to claim there D&D retroclone is the true D&D.  I have gotten very sick of hearing the edtion wariing that now has become system waring.
> 
> WHEN I sit to play a game I have a large group of games to choose from, rifts, shadow run, deadlands, WoD, Rifts, Star wars D6, plus a few others... or D&D... I liked alot of what piazo did in 3.5, and think they have some of (if not the) best adventures. However I am sick of being called out on pathfinder being true d&d, and 4e is dune.




So you want to see an end to the fun of (at least) tens of thousands of people, plus an end to the employment of all the staff at Paizo (not to mention the resulting job losses in FLGS, distributors, and elsewhere in the chain), because of the actions of a handful of obnoxious internet posters? Isn't that a slight over-reaction?



> Now in my mind Pathfinder is the leading retroclone, the most successful retro clone, and it has the best support of any retroclone, but when I hate the spite and bile thrown at 4e (it is even a little at nexr) and WoTC.




Pathfinder isn't a clone, retro- or otherwise. Indeed, there's now much more in the game that is _not_ derived from the 3.5e roots than that which _was_ taken from those roots. Your description of it as a 'retroclone' is no more accurate than a description of Pathfinder as "the true D&D". Given that both are inflamatory statements attacking one side in the "system wars", can you not see a certain irony in your position?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 8, 2012)

delericho said:


> So you want to see an end to the fun of (at least) tens of thousands of people, plus an end to the employment of all the staff at Paizo (not to mention the resulting job losses in FLGS, distributors, and elsewhere in the chain), because of the actions of a handful of obnoxious internet posters? Isn't that a slight over-reaction?



I think that all it would do is force pathfinder 2e witch would be just enough diffrent to be it's completly own game, with as much ties to D&D as Rifts, Rolemaster, and Dark age Vampire..





> Pathfinder isn't a clone, retro- or otherwise. Indeed, there's now much more in the game that is _not_ derived from the 3.5e roots than that which _was_ taken from those roots. Your description of it as a 'retroclone' is no more accurate than a description of Pathfinder as "the true D&D". Given that both are inflamatory statements attacking one side in the "system wars", can you not see a certain irony in your position?




You know I had this same arguement in the hackmaster thread, I don't know what people take as insulting about the term retro clone, Myth and Magic, and Castile and Crusaders, the B one that are all letters all take the term fine. They all have mechanics.not found in there edtions of d&d, and they would kill for piazo level exceptance.

So fine what term should I use for a game based on continueing a.previuse edtion of D&D?  

Pathfinder the awsome game is great, Pathfinder the fantasy rpg that might unseat d&d as top rpg  is no more a problem today then white wolf was in the 90's. Pathfinder being the one true spirit of D&D is BS... It has no more right to that claim then Myth and Magic.


Just the fact that every other spinoff game (is that better then retro clone?) put togather has less arguements with 4e fans on WotC web site in a year then pathfinder does in a week shows a current amount of problem. 

Ever since the playtest


----------



## jasper (Nov 8, 2012)

Hi mouseateers!
Hi MIckey!
Today, Donald, Goofy, and I are exploring the 
TOMB OF HORRORS! Come join us in the fun!
YEA! MICKEY!
[insert commerical break with new Tomb of horrors ride replacing the Pirates of Caribeeian Yawn!]


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 8, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Well I loved Mutants and Masterminds, I belive they are doing better work by becomeing less like D20... However for the last few years piazo fans (and even one employee) have tried to claim there D&D retroclone is the true D&D.  I have gotten very sick of hearing the edtion wariing that now has become system waring.



And you think getting rid of the OGL, if that were even possible which of course it isn't, would improve that? If anything, that'll only make it even more obnoxious.


> WHEN I sit to play a game I have a large group of games to choose from, rifts, shadow run, deadlands, WoD, Rifts, Star wars D6, plus a few others... or D&D... I liked alot of what piazo did in 3.5, and think they have some of (if not the) best adventures. However I am sick of being called out on pathfinder being true d&d, and 4e is dune.



Maybe you should hang out with some different people.  That's a very small and shrill subset of the population.  I don't see anyone making that claim, because I avoid the obnoxious posters.  But it's easy to do; there's very few of them, all things considered.


> Now in my mind Pathfinder is the leading retroclone, the most successful retro clone, and it has the best support of any retroclone, but when I hate the spite and bile thrown at 4e (it is even a little at nexr) and WoTC.



That's not really what's meant by the term retroclone.  Pathfinder isn't one at all.


> I would be just as happy if every jerk woke up tomorro saying "oh man why do I make others so angry" but I think the odds of that and the ogl going away are about the same



You want the OGL to go away, thus taking away the enjoyment of thousands of gamers (not to mention the livelihood of folks like Green Ronin and Paizo) all because of a handful of obnoxious Paizo fans who say that Pathfinder is true D&D and that makes you angry?

Maybe instead of wishing that nobody would make you angry for stupid reasons, you should invest in some anger management or something.


----------



## delericho (Nov 8, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I think that all it would do is force pathfinder 2e witch would be just enough diffrent to be it's completly own game, with as much ties to D&D as Rifts, Rolemaster, and Dark age Vampire..




That would depend on whether the OGL door drifts shut or slams shut. If it slams shut, that _at best_ means Paizo have to do a rush job on PF2.0, leading to substandard game. At worst, and more likely, it kills them stone dead.

But even the "drifts shut" option does nobody any favours. There's no appetite, either amongst PF players or even from Paizo, for a second edition at this time, never mind one that is significantly different. It is the very similarities to D&D 3.5e that are the major draw of the game. An enforced edition change would, I don't doubt, be accepted by the PF fans... but it's not a good outcome for anyone.



> You know I had this same arguement in the hackmaster thread, I don't know what people take as insulting about the term retro clone




Well, it implies a lack of creative effort. But that's not really important - the term is _inaccurate_, and if you're going to object to Pathfinder being called "the true D&D" (or whatever) then you really should be adopting the same standard in your own terminology. Pathfinder is no more a retroclone than Star Wars d20, or d20 Modern... or 4e for that matter.



> So fine what term should I use for a game based on continueing a.previuse edtion of D&D?




For the most part, I'd suggest referring to them by name. Failing that, spinoff games works, as would near-D&D.

But, to be honest, I don't mind Pathfinder either being counted amongst the editions of D&D _or_ being counted as a retro-clone. Neither is actually accurate, but both have enough of a grain of truth that people will know what's being talked about.

What I do find problematic, though, is an objection to the one that simultaneously makes use of the other. Either both are acceptable, or neither.



> Pathfinder the awsome game is great, Pathfinder the fantasy rpg that might unseat d&d as top rpg  is no more a problem today then white wolf was in the 90's. Pathfinder being the one true spirit of D&D is BS... It has no more right to that claim then Myth and Magic.




All true.



> Just the fact that every other spinoff game (is that better then retro clone?) put togather has less arguements with 4e fans on WotC web site in a year then pathfinder does in a week shows a current amount of problem.




Eh, if Pathfinder wasn't top dog, the arguments would be about Hackmaster instead, or DCC, or C&C, or whatever. Provided there was any one serious competitor to 4e, those arguments were inevitable.

It's just a tribalism thing. In Glasgow you get exactly the same tenor of debate over Ranger v Celtic (although with added death threats). On other sites (or even this one), you can guarantee _long_ threads by posting tirades about the Star Wars prequels. Or Star Wars v Star Trek. Or Kirk v Picard. Or Coke v Pepsi. And don't get me started on politics...

Basically, there are a handful of hugely emotive topics where people instinctively pick sides, and they're going to fight their corner. And the less important the issue _actually_ is, the more emotive the discussions tend to get, and the dirtier the fight is liable to be.

There comes a point where you just have to shake your head, comment that "somebody is wrong on the internet", and tune it out. Otherwise, insanity beckons.

Incidentally, it's quite likely that the Edition Wars have actually been good for sales of both Pathfinder and 4e. That's a massive, ongoing tide of free advertising right there. (Note that that presupposes they both existed, and that had the same relative levels of acceptance... just without the controversy. Obviously, had Pathfinder not existed at all, things would have been hugely different for 4e.)


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 8, 2012)

I prefer to say that Pathfinder is part of the d20 family of games.  Retroclone specifically refers to the use of the OGL to "back-engineer" a version of D&D that is _not_ open; either 1e, or BD&D or OD&D--and the growing family of variants that spun off from that initiative.  Using retroclone in any other sense doesn't make sense to me; the term was coined specifically to refer to that movement, and OSRIC, S&W, LL, etc.


----------



## varden (Nov 8, 2012)

marv said:


> Ah, but you forget the DnD industry leader, protected by a solid open license. I am speaking of course about Paizo. DnD lives in Pathfinder by a small company that cares about gamers.




Edition wars, Marv? Really?


----------



## Cybit (Nov 8, 2012)

The only argument I could see in favor of removing the OGL is that one could argue (I'm not sure I would agree with it, personally), that the 3.5 license being easily accessible stifles creativity, in that RPG developers have this proven "engine" they can just stick their game on, and are likely to do that rather than try to push the envelope.  

To use a video game example; think of how many MMOs rip off of WoW, or FPS games that are poorly revamped Call of Duty games.  

That said; I was just curious.  Should a bigger company ever acquire Hasbro / D&D, I'd have to think finding a way to remove the OGL would be the lawyers' first priority.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 8, 2012)

Arguably that _did_ happen, early in the wave of OGL products.  In any case, the OGL was specifically designed so that it can't be removed, no matter how much of a priority it is.  The only way around it is to come up with something so much better that it leaves the OGL behind as a relict of history.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 8, 2012)

It's not legally possible, AFAICT (though IANAL), but I think it would be in the best interest of D&D and of WotC if they could retroactively pull the d20 SRD out from under the OGL. I don't believe it's possible to make a game that can be recognized as D&D that can't be reverse-engineered from the d20 SRD and raw mechanics, and that means every future version of D&D will have to contend with legal knock-offs of older editions.


----------



## Nellisir (Nov 8, 2012)

Cybit said:


> The only argument I could see in favor of removing the OGL is that one could argue (I'm not sure I would agree with it, personally), that the 3.5 license being easily accessible stifles creativity, in that RPG developers have this proven "engine" they can just stick their game on, and are likely to do that rather than try to push the envelope.



I wrote a post several years ago outlining the evolving use of the OGL (IMO).  In sum, WotC overestimated how fast and to what extent OGL products would diversify off of the d20 core mechanics.  There was much less diversity than expected for a very long time, and much of what diversity there was, particularly in RPG systems, came from one company - Green Ronin.
Whether that is good or bad depends on your thinking, and I'm not sure there's a right answer.  I think understanding of the d20 mechanics by designers (everywhere, not just at companies) took at least several years, if not half a decade or longer, to really mature, and real innovation wasn't possible until that was accomplished.

On the flip side, the d20 system is popular.  There's no percentage in being different for the sake of being different.  You need to be -better- in -some- fashion.  People built on the d20 system because they liked it, and other people liked it, and they continue to use it because the basic system is reliable and understood.



> That said; I was just curious.  Should a bigger company ever acquire Hasbro / D&D, I'd have to think finding a way to remove the OGL would be the lawyers' first priority.



First off, not going to happen.
Second, people misunderstand the OGL.  The OGL allows other people to use your copyrighted material.  It does not revoke your copyright, or give you control of theirs. 

OK, I tried to posit results of "rescinding" the OGL, but it fell off the logic table so fast I can't do it.  The OGL is an agreement that all parties willingly and publically entered into.  Rescinding it would be like going back to the house your parent were born in and claiming, four owners later, that it and everything currently in it are yours.  It's nonsensical, impossible, and would poison the entire gaming community against whoever did it.  I doubt any company in the world is as image-conscious as Disney.  They're not going to lead off by shutting down the leading RPG company in hopes it will make people love them.

If you want a reasonable paranoia, think about Disney buying Paizo.  Much, much simpler.

And Pathfinder really does become the "true" spirit of D&D.  

PS - 4e is Dune?  With sandworms?


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Nov 9, 2012)

Nellisir said:


> (snip) If you want a reasonable paranoia, think about Disney buying Paizo.  Much, much simpler. (snip)




What a great idea.

I must admit, I would really like to see Disney with D&D or Pathfinder. They know how to maximise an IP across a range of media and I think a decent D&D movie and/or TV series is well overdue.


----------

