Skip to toolbar

Could Heroquest be finally coming back again?

Home Forums News, Rumours & General Discussion Could Heroquest be finally coming back again?

Supported by (Turn Off)

Related Games:

This topic contains 41 replies, has 14 voices, and was last updated by  ced1106 3 years, 7 months ago.

Viewing 12 posts - 31 through 42 (of 42 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1557494

    odinsgrandson
    Participant
    4288xp

    Geek and Sundry boost the popularity of a lot of smaller board games, but we’re talking about HeroQuest.

    The name brand and reputation are already out there.  Gamezone’s dubious HeroQuest 25th anniversary version brought in half a million dollars in its initial bump due to that name recognition alone. And that was from people who were willing to ignore the warning signs (even TGN openly calling out Gamezone for not having the appropriate rights). In the right hands, this could easily explode on Kickstarter or at retail.

    HeroQuest has the visibility. What it needs is to be great in the right ways to satisfy those who are drawn to its reputation so that a new version can have the reputation that the old version has.

    #1557497

    limburger
    21533xp
    Cult of Games Member

    Or the dubious kickstarter has tainted the name …

    yes, us old folk remember Heroquest.
    However there’s a chance more people will remember it as the failed kickstarter instead …

    If this is a no-brainer then why didn’t GW buy the rights and cash in ?
    Why hasn’t Hasbro/MB done something to reboot it ?

    I’d say because it’s not a sure thing.

    I’ve seen more than one company suffer from the sudden success their kickstarter brought.

    I’d use kickstarter to fund a limited production run as a proof of concept to the actual investors.
    And then do a proper worl-wide relaunch on its next anniversary.

    #1557529

    ced1106
    Participant
    6204xp

    > However there’s a chance more people will remember it as the failed kickstarter instead …

    On BGG and French TricTrack (sp?), it was well-known that GameZone had nothing to do with the original HeroQuest. Of course, BGG is a minority of boardgamers, and I don’t know what the reaction to HQ25 was in Spain and other countries. Restoration Games also has a reputation on BGG, so I’m sure the game’s going to make its funding, at least.

    > If this is a no-brainer then why didn’t GW buy the rights and cash in ?

    I’m thinking miniatures. GW sold other boardgames with miniatures, and stopped because wargamers found out it was cheaper to buy the boardgames with miniatures than buy them individually. Space Hulk is another BGG favorite, but GW only released a limited numbers.

    > Why hasn’t Hasbro/MB done something to reboot it ?

    I think the hobby market is too small for Hasbro/MB or otherwise not their target. They did reboot it with DragonQuest and failed. I suppose they also make MUCH more money on their other games, suchas Monopoly and Hi-Ho-Cherry-O. I don’t think the hobby market is of interest to them, although, IIRC, they were part of the original release of the Lord of the Rings boardgame, which FFG took over. Maybe had WotC been around, though, Hasbro/MB would have had them publish HQ, much like they did with the D&D HeroScape games. Note that, if HQ were published today, it would cost MUCH more than its original price, maybe $50 or $75 or more per copy, out of the price range mass-market parent would pay for a “kid’s game”.

    Hasbro/MB’s attempt at the hobby game market was the Avalon Hill brand failure. Hasbro/MB bought the rights to Avalon Hill games, yet was only interested in Acquire. They flopped or had limited results with Cosmic Encounter, Las Vegas (?), Monsters across America (?). and maybe one or two other titles. Betrayal on House on Haunted Hill was actually their breakaway successful game, still popular and even with a Scooby Doo variant after all these years. However, the game is published by Wizards of the Coast, not Hasbro/MB. Hasbro / WotC’s Magic the Gathering: Arena of the Ancients was a reboot attempt at HeroScape, but didn’t last terribly long, perhaps because of their components. WotC certainly could develop a dice-pool dungeoncrawler, but its components would be more like their Magic : Arena boardgame, with its soft plastic and cardboard.
    a
    Another thought is that HQ is still in more demand as a hobby game, rather than a mass market kid’s or party game, and Hasbro/MB doesn’t have the sales channels for hobby games. Asmodee, of course, does, but, of course, wasn’t around to introduce HeroQuest alongside Settlers on mass market shelves.

    #1557679

    odinsgrandson
    Participant
    4288xp

    What i honestly don’t understand is why Hasbro does not hand HeroQuest to Wizards of the Coast to make the game set in the Forgotten Realms (to combine the D&D brand with HeroQuest).

    I totally expected that to happen after Gamezone proved the market value of the brand, and the fact that Hasbro/Wizards could use the name without permission from the MoonDesign people who have the US trademark on the name.

    Of course, Wizards did their own series of dungeon crawlers with only the Dungeons and Dragons brand.  I suspect that the reason they did not make HeroQuest is that they’re unwilling to publish the game without the trademark, and likewise unwilling to paywhatever price MoonDesign wants for it (the name clearly has value).  In the end, the D&D brand by itself is probably enough value.

    #1557779

    ced1106
    Participant
    6204xp

    > What i honestly don’t understand is why Hasbro does not hand HeroQuest to Wizards of the Coast to make the game set in the Forgotten Realms (to combine the D&D brand with HeroQuest). I totally expected that to happen after Gamezone proved the market value of the brand, and the fact that Hasbro/Wizards could use the name without permission from the MoonDesign people who have the US trademark on the name.

    Probably lawyers. And I wouldn’t risk my job by intentionally stepping over someone’s IP. HQ is such an IP mess and Hasbro/MB owns so many other IP’s outright, that the legal costs of sorting out HeroQuest don’t seem to be worth it for them. Dark Tower, owned by MB, also wasn’t worth it to them, but was also licensed to Restoration Games.

    > In the end, the D&D brand by itself is probably enough value.

    Yeah, that. Same goes for Candy Land, Cherry-O, and all the other IP’s Hasbro/MB *knows* they own. Remember that Hasbro/MB bought the rights to *all* the Avalon Hill games, and only thought one was worth reprinting. EDIT: Just remembered that Hasbro/MB bought WotC for the Pokemon CCG license, not Magic or D&D. I vaguely thought D&D was almost even discontinued at one time by Hasbro/MB since it made little money compared to other Hasbro/MB products (?).

    BTW, Go ask your grandfather (: about Pit. Pit was one of the iconic Parker Brothers games, now owned by Hasbro. Despite being a classic game for over 100 years, the most recent publication was under license, by Winning Moves, not by Hasbro/MB.

    EDIT: I guess you could say that RG *is* how Hasbro/MB would like to make money from HQ. RG essentially takes out a lot of risk for Hasbro/MB. RG (hopefully) untangles the IP rights (eg. with Moon Design)l RG provides the game development for the target audience (hobby market). RG handles the sales and distribution of the game (eg. through hobby channels). And, also importantly, RG takes all the capital risk in manufacturing the game. Fireball Island (MB), Dark Tower (MB), and now HeroQuest (MB/GW) are all Hasbro/MB licenses, and Hasbro/MB may be satisfied with this arrangement.

    Now, all RG needs to do is bring back HeroScape… 😀

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 7 months ago by  ced1106.
    #1557923

    totsuzenheni
    Participant
    5651xp

    I used to play Pit with my grandma. I’d completely forgotten about that game.

    #1558082

    odinsgrandson
    Participant
    4288xp

    Does anyone here have an old copy of HeroQuest?  Can someone check the fine print on the inside cover of the rulebook and see what the copyright notices say?

    I do think that Ced is right- Hasbro wants to make money off of HeroQuest by licensing it to RG.  GW has been the same way about a lot of their classic games (Talisman, Fury of Dracula, etc).

    Maybe some day, Restoration Games will be able to bring back Chaos in the Old World.

    #1558483

    totsuzenheni
    Participant
    5651xp

    I’m not sure it matters much what the copyright says on the originals given that things may well have moved on since then, but for what it’s worth i have two copies of the Rules Of Play and two copies of the Quest Book. I think one pair are the U.S.A. edition (with The Maze quest) and one pair are the U.K. edition (with The Trial quest). (Note that i’m not entirely certain that the U.S.A. edition Rules Of Play and the Quest Book are from the same set as although i bought them as part of a set it was an incomplete set i bought via eBay and parts might have been bought and sold, mixed and matched.)

     

    The U.S.A. editions of both the Rules Of Play and the Quest Book have:

    “MB GAMES (logo) © 1989 Milton Bradley Ltd, [Milton Bradley Ltd, (Quest Book only)] Corporation Road, Newport, Gwent NPT oYH, 4271GB 489”

    &

    “Developed with GAMES WORKSHOP TM (logo) HeroQuest is a trademark owned by Games Workshop Ltd., and is used with permission.”

     

    The U.K. editions of both the Rules Of Play and the Quest Book have:

    “MB GAMES (logo) © [1989 (Quest Book)][1990 (Rules Of Play)] Milton Bradley Ltd, Milton Bradley Ltd, Corporation Road, Newport, Gwent NP9 oYH, 4271GB 490”

    &

    “Developed with GAMES WORKSHOP TM (logo)”

    #1558568

    balginstondraeg
    Participant
    1151xp

    So the important question should be, if the game only came out in 1989 then how come I got my copy for Christmas in 1988? And yes, I have the original rulebook which does not state that dice granted from weapon and armour cards do not stack with the base dice. My father used to insist on making them stack and frequently had his heroes rolling 6 or 7 dice at a time.

    #1558605

    odinsgrandson
    Participant
    4288xp

    – Your 1988 experience is clearly the result of the Mandela Effect.

    – People talk as though it is impossible to disentagle the HeroQuest rights, but the copyright notifications are there to say who owns what exactly. While that can have changed, we can probably trace it (for example, MB is owned by Hasbro

    – Made in conjunction with Games Workshop does not grant GW the rights to basically anything.

    – I checked Space Crusade, and there’s no copyright notification in the books (though they do have MB and GW logos).  But the back of the Space Crusade (1990) box declares the game to be copyrighted by Hasbro, and states that the art, sculptures, and characters are based on works copyrighted by Games Workshop.

    That’s a LOT more specific, and goes a long way to showing us who is allowed to reproduce what.

    – I find it interesting that GW trademarked HeroQuest, but Hasbro trademarked Space Crusade. But obviously both have been allowed to lapse.  Which means that they could have continued to make Advanced HeroQuest without any permission from Hasbro (but I guess they decided to create Warhammer Quest instead).

    #1558629

    limburger
    21533xp
    Cult of Games Member

    @odinsgrandson no company is ever going to ‘hand over’ something to another company for free.
    Even if said company is ‘related’ to the parent company (never underestimate corporate politics and cultural differences between business entities).
    The list of incompetent, stupid and greedy managers that could ruin any good intentions at places like that is a long one as well.

    And don’t forget the “not invented here” syndrom.
    WoTC has D&D and related games.
    Why would they want to use an existing game and re-theme it when they can make one of their own using their own ip/copyright ?

    Yes … all the rational reasons would make it the perfect fit.
    But that’s not how it works …

    #1558811

    ced1106
    Participant
    6204xp

    > – Made in conjunction with Games Workshop does not grant GW the rights to basically anything.

    fwiw, GW had some sort of rights to Fimir (and other monsters in HQ?). Of course, just because the HQ rulebook doesn’t mention such-and-such rights for GW, doesn’t mean they don’t have them, including because they filed some sort of IP protection for the name. (RG, also of course, can use non-GW names for its monsters, such as lizardmen for Fimir, and Evil Warriors for Chaos Warriors. I guess most HQ fans wouldn’t mind?)

    https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1621361/fimir-are-back

    https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1072359/heroquest-legal-discussion

    > Why would they want to use an existing game and re-theme it when they can make one of their own using their own ip/copyright?

    Yes, actions like RG are definitely the exception, especially with HQ’s murky legal past. I would think most IP lawyers are more interested in making a good living, than found a game company for much more work and potentially less income! (Of course, the lawyer / founder of RG may have done enough work as an IP lawyer that he could fulfill a dream of bringing back his favorite childhood games.)

    btw, Merchants of Venus was a IP headache as well, with the designer thinking he had the rights, and licensing them to Stronghold Games, while the publisher, Hasbro, who bought Avalon Hill’s game rights, licensed the rights to FFG. Both Stronghold and FFG announced publication of the game nearly at the same time, and they came to an amicable negotiation. (aka. AH contracts are as ironclad as a rusted sieve and Hasbro has better lawyers. 😛

    https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/55141-im-confused-stronghold-vs-ffg/

    https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2012/6/27/galactic-trade-resumes/

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 7 months ago by  ced1106.
Viewing 12 posts - 31 through 42 (of 42 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Supported by (Turn Off)