Tom Clancy games...License or Original IP?

[Izuno]

Splinter Cell

Ghost Recon

Rainbow Six

Yes, all three of these series are techically licensed from the Tom Clancy universe of books. Rainbow Six was actually a book, so you could argue that the game really is a true license...as in it is adapted content from a non video game source. (The book did come first, right?)

Ghost Recon I believe is only a video game with the Tom Clancy name on it. Splinter Cell also is only a video game with the Tom Clancy name on it...until a Splinter Cell book came out a couple years ago that was not actually written by Tom Clancy.

Anyway, is Splinter Cell an original IP or license? It's licensed by Ubisoft from Tom Clancy because it uses Clancy's name, but wasn't it created originally as a video game and wasn't it the first time the Sam Fisher character appeared? I think this game is a tough one to categorize.

One of my clients is doing a big analysis of Licensed vs Original IP and in our last meeting this question occupied us for about 30 minutes.

My Opinion:

I think it should really be an original IP and not a license, because "Splinter Cell" is a bigger draw than "Tom Clancy" to gamers, even though in the beginning of the series it may have been the reverse.

Thanks

[dissonance]

i tend to think it was just clancy's ip that he never wrote into a book and then liscenced to whomever.

[Furyo]

I'm with you Izuno. Tom Clancy is a brand like any other, and in the occurence a game comes out without being linked with a former edition (book, movie, game, etc), then it's an original IP.

In this particular case, I believe Tom Clancy actually worked on the script, but it wasn't an adaptation of earlier work.

[Evert]

Ghost recon was created by Red storm when it was still owned by Tom Clancy, so that's probably why it's called Tom Clancy's GR.

Maybe Splinter Cell has been a red storm license that was never developed until later, when Ubi got their hands on Red Storm.

[Mazy]

I've never understood why they plaster Tom Clancy's name all over those titles. It means nothing to me, and in fact I'd rather be without it since it just makes the title of those games ridiculously long. Anyway, as far as I know Splinter Cell and Ghost Recon are entirely made up by the developers, and given that they dont really have special story relating to anything Tom Clancy afaik then why the hell bother?

But I guess the Clancy name sells copies for some people :G

[st0lve]

I know that R6 was first a book, Ghost recon might be a book, since TC have written LOTS of army novels and such.

SC is probably just uses his name.

[Evert]

Yes mazy, but tom clancy was still the owner of RSE, so he atleast had something to do with the first game in the gr-series.

Like Sid Meier's Civilization :roll:

And it probably sells quite a lot of copies among the old military vets who are actually playing the old rainbow six-games and original Ghost Recon, since they actually seem to like his books.

[Section_Ei8ht]

The way it worked for splinter cell (afaik) is that Clancy had pretty much little to do with the story and the characters. All Clancy did was approve the technology and politics of the game, to make sure that they were close to realism.

From my understanding, the "Tom Clancy's" brand that is slapped on so many things are just a way of attracting people to a particular product that is starting out. To be quite honest, I probably never would have played splinter cell in the first place if it didnt have the Tom Clancy brand on it, but then again, I'm a huge Clancy fan, and hence the point of putting the brand on it.

I remember hearing about the splinter cell dev team getting into a argument with Clancy over the possibility of the Night Vision/Thermal Goggle hybrid, with Clancy saying it is not possible, but the dev team were able to sway him.

Long story short, I don't think he actually owns the IP, its just a brand name that is put on as a form of advertising (a way of saying "if you like Tom Clancy stories, you'll love this, too"), and is paid royalties for the use of the name.

[Skjalg]

You might be right, but I think theres more to it than that, I think he also does quality control, which means that everything that has his name on it will have to be approved so that it fits his standards so to speak

[Evert]

yeah skjalg

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platfor ... 20of%20all

Some standards

[st0lve]

Soaf was a hoax, did anyone even play that game? I recall I played the demo which was just as bad as the movie!

[atrocity]

I just talked to a friend from Red Storm, he told me Splinter Cell is Ubisoft IP Very good question lol, had me baffeld as hell.

[Bluestrike]

Yeah the book was before The R6 game, I have quite a few of Clancy's books but I don't buy them anymore because the last ones were a bit to unrealistic (watch out here comes the US you all die we don't get a scratch and a religioes speech taking 10 pages was a bit to much for me)

Nah I like Eric L Harry's WW3 and other books and mcNabs books far more altough Clancy's OP center series is still enjoyable.

redstom also made a rtsish game and like evert said Clancy started Red Storm and wrote the story's for the games in the beginning, I have no clue if hes still with redstorm and doing anything there

[Evert]

I heard he lost huge amounts of money in a divorce, and had to sell RSE.

Not sure if it's true tho

[Izuno]

I've never understood why they plaster Tom Clancy's name all over those titles. It means nothing to me, and in fact I'd rather be without it since it just makes the title of those games ridiculously long. Anyway, as far as I know Splinter Cell and Ghost Recon are entirely made up by the developers, and given that they dont really have special story relating to anything Tom Clancy afaik then why the hell bother?

But I guess the Clancy name sells copies for some people :G

Yes I am with you. At this point, the "Tom Clancy" brand is what's called an umbrella brand that unifies GR, R6 and SC all together. You could argue that GR, R6 and SC are each franchises under the TC brand.

But from a comparision point of view, consider this: If you were trying to figure out how to develop, how to market and when to release an original property, would you take games like the original Splinter Cell under consideration in your analysis? Would you take the first Call of Duty game? Clearly Call of Duty was an original property developed by Infinity Ward. But it's WW2 which is a "free" license. I really think it is an original property. Just as the first Brothers in Arms is an original property, and BIA:EIB is a sequel of original IP.

The bottom line is that this is not so cut in dry and is actually highly debateble, especially by publishers doing brand planning and forecast modeling. And I think this is highly important to developers contemplating creating an original IP when trying to determine the sales potential of a game before they make it.

My conclusion is that games like Splinter Cell are really a hybrid. Technically it is licensed, however it was an original property. It's kind of like an original racing game that has a bunch of licensed vehicles in it. It's kind of original, yet kind of kind of not.