Should Blizzard License Its IP? A Call for Creative Revival in the Shadow of Departed Legends

Blizzard Entertainment once stood as the undisputed titan of game development, creating worlds that defined generations. But with many of the original visionaries gone and fan projects often surpassing official offerings, it's time to ask: should Blizzard license its iconic IPs to studios that could breathe new life into these beloved universes?

⚔️ The Legacy and the Letdown: When Giants Stumble

There was a time when Blizzard Entertainment wasn't just a game developer—it was a cultural phenomenon. Warcraft, StarCraft, Diablo, and later Overwatch weren't merely games; they were landmarks that shaped the industry and created communities that spanned the globe. Blizzard's name on a box was a seal of quality, a promise of polish, and a guarantee of countless hours of immersive gameplay.

Today, that legacy stands tarnished. The studio that once could do no wrong now struggles to maintain its reputation. Controversial decisions, high-profile canceled projects, and a perceived lack of innovation have left even the most dedicated fans disillusioned. The recent aggressive lawsuit against Turtle WoW—a fan-run server that reimagined classic World of Warcraft—felt less like protecting intellectual property and more like a company lashing out at its own fans for doing what Blizzard itself no longer could.

The Exodus of Visionaries

What's particularly telling about Blizzard's current state is the departure of the very architects who built its iconic worlds. The original developers who created the games we cherish have largely moved on:

• World of Warcraft: The majority of the original WoW development team has left Blizzard. Key figures like Jeff Kaplan (Tigole), Rob Pardo, and Alex Afrasiabi have departed. Only a handful of the original team members remain.
• Diablo: The Schaefer brothers (Max and Erich) and David Brevik, the creative minds behind Diablo and Diablo II, left Blizzard long ago to form companies like Runic Games and Hybrik. The current Diablo team bears little resemblance to the original.
• StarCraft: While Chris Metzen remained with Blizzard for years (retiring in 2016), many of the original StarCraft developers have moved on to other projects or left the industry entirely.
• Warcraft RTS: The original team behind Warcraft: Orcs & Humans and Warcraft II has almost completely dispersed, with many having retired or moved to other studios.

This exodus isn't just about individual developers leaving—it's about the departure of the creative vision, the institutional knowledge, and the passion that made these games special. When the people who built these worlds are no longer there to guide them, is it any wonder that Blizzard struggles to recapture the magic?

🧠 Why Licensing Makes Sense: Strategic Evolution, Not Surrender

The idea of Blizzard licensing its iconic intellectual property isn't an admission of defeat—it's a strategic pivot that could save these beloved universes from stagnation. Here's why licensing makes more sense now than ever before:

Creative Expansion Beyond Blizzard's Comfort Zone

Blizzard has become increasingly risk-averse, sticking to proven formulas and safe design choices. Licensing would allow other studios to explore genres and styles that Blizzard would never attempt:

• Horror Experiences: Imagine a psychological horror game set in the haunted halls of Karazhan or the depths of Tristram Cathedral.
• Narrative-Driven RPGs: A Baldur's Gate-style RPG set in Azeroth, where player choices truly shape the world.
• Roguelike Adventures: A Hades-style Diablo game where each run through Hell feels fresh and meaningful.
• Grand Strategy: A Total War-style Warcraft game where you command entire factions across Azeroth.

Fan Engagement: Giving Players What They Actually Want

Private servers and fan projects thrive because they offer experiences that players want but Blizzard isn't providing. When thousands of players flock to servers like Turtle WoW or Project Epoch, it's not because they hate Blizzard—it's because they love these worlds enough to seek out the versions that resonate with them.

Licensing would allow Blizzard to harness this passion rather than fight it. By working with studios that "get it," Blizzard could offer official experiences that capture the spirit of what made these games special in the first place.

Revenue Without Risk: A Financial Win-Win

From a business perspective, licensing is a low-risk, high-reward proposition:

• Royalty Income: Blizzard could earn significant royalties without the overhead and risk of full development. Typical licensing deals in the gaming industry range from 10-20% of net revenue. For a successful game selling 5 million copies at $60 each, that's $30-60 million in royalties for Blizzard.
• Market Expansion: Licensed games could reach new audiences who might not play traditional Blizzard titles. For example, a narrative-driven Warcraft RPG could attract players who typically enjoy single-player story games but avoid MMOs.
• Brand Reinforcement: Well-executed licensed games would keep Blizzard's IPs relevant and in the public consciousness. The "Halo" franchise, despite being primarily developed by 343 Industries, has maintained its relevance through licensed novels, comics, and spin-off games that expand the universe.
• Reduced Development Costs: Blizzard wouldn't need to invest in new teams or take risks on unproven concepts. Instead, it could leverage the expertise of specialized studios while still reaping the rewards.

The financial success of other licensing models in gaming demonstrates this potential. Capcom's decision to license its Resident Evil IP for a Netflix series resulted in a show that, while divisive, brought new attention to the franchise and likely boosted game sales. Similarly, Sega's licensing of its Sonic IP to various developers has resulted in both hits and misses, but the overall effect has been to keep the character relevant across generations.

Reputation Repair: From Litigious to Collaborative

Blizzard's recent aggressive legal actions against fan projects have damaged its reputation in the gaming community. By embracing licensing and collaboration, Blizzard could signal a new direction—one that values creativity and fan passion over rigid control.

Even John Hight, Executive Producer and General Manager of the Warcraft franchise, recently acknowledged that Blizzard is "open to people who really get it and have a cool idea about how to express Warcraft," though he admitted the list of suitable partners is "probably pretty small."

This small step toward openness could become a giant leap if expanded into a full licensing program.

🤔 Addressing the Concerns: Why Licensing Isn't a Risk-Free Gamble

While the case for licensing is compelling, it's important to acknowledge the legitimate concerns that might make Blizzard hesitant. Licensing isn't without risks, and a thoughtful approach must address these challenges head-on.

Quality Control and Brand Dilution

Perhaps the most significant concern is the risk of brand dilution. Blizzard has built its reputation on quality, and a poorly executed licensed game could damage that reputation. We've seen this happen before—when licensed games are rushed or mishandled, they can tarnish the entire IP. The infamous E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial game for Atari is often cited as an example of how a single bad licensed product can harm a brand.

However, this risk can be mitigated through careful partner selection and maintaining creative oversight. By establishing clear quality standards and retaining final approval rights, Blizzard can ensure that licensed games meet the same level of polish that players expect from first-party titles.

Creative Integrity and Canon Conflicts

Another concern is maintaining the integrity of the game worlds and their lore. Blizzard's universes are complex, with decades of established history and character development. Allowing external studios to play in these sandboxes could lead to contradictions, retcons, or interpretations that don't align with Blizzard's vision.

Yet, this is where Blizzard could actually benefit from fresh perspectives. The original creators are largely gone, and new interpretations might revitalize stale narratives. By establishing a "canon tier" system—where some stories are official and others are alternate takes—Blizzard can maintain control over core lore while still allowing creative exploration.

Financial and Resource Allocation

Licensing requires resources to manage. Blizzard would need to dedicate staff to oversee licensed projects, review proposals, and ensure quality standards are met. There's also the opportunity cost of focusing on licensing instead of internal development.

But consider the alternative: continuing to pour resources into underperforming internal projects while missing out on the revenue and innovation that licensing could bring. A well-managed licensing program could actually free up Blizzard to focus on its core strengths while still expanding its portfolio.

Blizzard's Corporate Culture

Blizzard has historically maintained tight control over its IPs, fostering an insular culture that may resist external collaboration. This "not invented here" mentality could make it difficult to embrace licensing, even if it makes business sense.

Cultural change is challenging but not impossible. By starting small with a pilot program and demonstrating success, Blizzard could gradually shift its culture toward more openness. The recent acknowledgment by John Hight that Blizzard is "open to people who really get it" suggests that this cultural shift may already be beginning.

🏆 Studios That Could Carry the Torch: Who Has the Vision?

If Blizzard were to license its IPs, which studios could do justice to these beloved worlds? Here are some studios with the vision, talent, and track record to make it happen:

These studios have proven time and again that they can handle complex worlds and deliver genre-defining experiences. Licensing Blizzard IPs to them could result in bold, innovative titles that reinvigorate fan interest and bring new life to these universes.

🚫 The Risks of Doing Nothing: Stagnation and Irrelevance

If Blizzard continues down its current path—relying on nostalgia, shutting down fan projects, and failing to innovate—it risks becoming irrelevant in an increasingly competitive gaming landscape. The consequences of inaction could be severe:

Fan Alienation

Every time Blizzard shuts down a fan project, it alienates the very community that keeps its IPs alive. These projects aren't just copyright infringement—they're love letters to worlds that fans cherish. When Blizzard responds with lawsuits instead of collaboration, it sends a clear message: "We don't care about your passion, only our control."

Creative Stagnation

Without fresh perspectives, Blizzard's worlds will continue to stagnate. The company has shown it can't keep up with the demand for new content and innovation in its own universes. Meanwhile, fan projects are constantly evolving, adding features and experiences that players desperately want but Blizzard won't provide.

Market Erosion

The gaming landscape is more competitive than ever, and players have more options than ever before. If Blizzard can't deliver compelling experiences in its own worlds, players will find those experiences elsewhere—even if they have to create them themselves. The recent success of private servers like Turtle WoW (with over 40,000 concurrent players) proves that there's a massive market for these experiences that Blizzard is leaving untapped.

Financial Impact

Beyond the immediate loss of potential revenue from licensed games, there's a long-term financial risk. As Blizzard's IPs become less relevant, the value of the company itself diminishes. The goodwill and cultural capital that Blizzard built over decades is eroding, and that's something that can't be easily regained.

🧭 A New Era of Collaboration: From Gatekeeper to Curator

Imagine a different future for Blizzard's IPs—one where the company becomes a curator of its universe rather than just a gatekeeper. In this future:

Blizzard as Quality Controller

Blizzard would maintain quality control over licensed products, ensuring that any game set in its worlds meets certain standards. This would protect the integrity of the IP while allowing for creative freedom.

Canon and Non-Canon Experiences

Some licensed games could be part of the official canon, while others could exist as "what if" scenarios or alternate takes. This approach would satisfy both lore purists and those looking for fresh interpretations.

Community Integration

Blizzard could integrate licensed games into the broader ecosystem, with achievements, cosmetics, or other benefits that carry over to the main games. This would create a unified experience rather than a fragmented one.

Feedback Loop

The success or failure of licensed games would provide valuable data about what players actually want, informing Blizzard's own development priorities.

A Model for Success

We've seen this model work in other industries. Marvel went from strictly controlling its IP to licensing it broadly, resulting in games like Marvel's Spider-Man (Insomniac) and Marvel Ultimate Alliance that have been both critical and commercial successes while expanding the audience for Marvel properties.

🎮 Modern Success Stories: Licensing in Today's Gaming Landscape

The Marvel example is compelling, but it's far from the only success story in recent years. The gaming industry has seen numerous examples of successful IP licensing that have revitalized franchises and expanded audiences:

• Halo: While 343 Industries handles the main games, Microsoft has licensed the Halo IP for novels, comics, and even a TV series. These expansions have kept the universe alive between game releases and attracted new fans who might never have played the games.
• The Witcher: CD Projekt Red's decision to license its IP for a Netflix series resulted in a massive boost in game sales and brought the franchise to a global audience that might never have discovered it otherwise.
• Castlevania: Konami's licensing of the Castlevania IP to Powerhouse Animation for a Netflix series was met with critical acclaim and renewed interest in the classic franchise, leading to new game announcements.
• Final Fantasy VII: Square Enix has expanded the FFVII universe through licensed projects like the FFVII Remake (developed in partnership with external studios) and the upcoming FFVII Ever Crisis mobile game, demonstrating how licensing can breathe new life into classic titles.
• Warhammer 40,000: Games Workshop has aggressively licensed its IP to numerous game developers, resulting in a diverse range of titles from strategy games to RPGs. This approach has kept the Warhammer universe vibrant and relevant for decades.

These examples show that when done right, licensing can extend the lifespan of an IP, attract new audiences, and create additional revenue streams—all without diluting the core brand. In fact, many of these licensed projects have enhanced the original IPs by exploring new angles and reaching new demographics.

The Path Forward: How Blizzard Could Implement Licensing

If Blizzard were to embrace licensing, how would it work in practice? Here's a potential roadmap:

Phase 1: Pilot Program

Start with a small, carefully selected pilot program. Choose 2-3 studios with proven track records and give them specific, limited-scope projects to test the waters.

Phase 2: Expansion

Based on the success of the pilot program, expand to include more studios and a wider range of projects. Establish clear guidelines for what is and isn't acceptable within each IP.

Phase 3: Integration

Integrate licensed games into Blizzard's ecosystem, with cross-promotion, shared achievements, and unified lore where appropriate.

Phase 4: Evolution

Continuously evolve the program based on feedback and performance. Some studios might graduate to larger projects, while others might not be invited back.

Conclusion: Leading or Getting Out of the Way

Blizzard once led the industry by creating worlds that captured imaginations and defined genres. But many of the visionaries who built those worlds are gone, and the company that remains seems more interested in protecting what was than creating what could be.

Licensing isn't a loss—it's an evolution. It's a recognition that sometimes the best way to honor a legacy is to let others help carry it forward. By licensing its IPs to studios that still have the passion, creativity, and vision that once defined Blizzard, the company could ensure that its worlds continue to thrive and evolve.

Blizzard once led the industry. Maybe it's time to let others help carry the torch. The alternative—watching these beloved worlds slowly fade into irrelevance while fan projects are shut down—is far worse than the risk of sharing control.

The question isn't whether Blizzard should license its IP—it's whether it can afford not to in an industry that's leaving it behind.

What do you think? Should Blizzard license its iconic IPs to other studios, or should it maintain tight control? Which studios would you trust with your favorite Blizzard worlds? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Tags: Blizzard Entertainment, IP Licensing, Warcraft, StarCraft, Diablo, Game Development, Gaming Industry, Creative Revival, Fan Projects, Turtle WoW