Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The funny part is that GW can say that they do no market research, they DO hear their fans though. If you need proof of this just look at what happened after some of the Ward codexes dropped. People friggin tweaked out and said about how he was this that and other things. Now when a codex is written (pretty much exactly how it was before) they no longer credit just one person, the credit the design studio.

They listen to us, but they can't hear us.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

The move to targeting collectors over modelers seems to be coming from their belief that this is what the bulk of their customers already are. They don't understand their own games or why people, particularly adults, would want to play them.

I don't understand why people, particularly rational people, would want to play them either. It's like they're sitting in the "design studio" (really just the remaining rules writer's cubicle) and all agape that people are still buying the rulebooks. That would also explain why nearly all the fluff is rehashed and the books are nearly all rushed, copy-paste jobs.

They get the intern to write the rules?

Someone would be willing to intern at GW? I'd hate to have that on my resume if I were serious about writing.

So what does that say about people who play a game that is just a catalogue? Aside from astounding loyalty, that is...

Rick Priestley: what a dreamboat.

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
So what does that say about people who play a game that is just a catalogue? Aside from astounding loyalty, that is...

Rick Priestley: what a dreamboat.

In all seriousness I've wondered why people stick with 40k knowing what kind of company GW is. Either they really don't care that they're being treated like clueless morons who buy anything, or they just figure they enjoy it so they'll deal. I used to chalk it up to just people not wanting to admit that they invested hundreds or even thousands of dollars in such a poor game so that's why people got defensive (because pointing it out makes them look stupid), but I really do see actual loyalty and fanaticism towards GW products, usually coupled with ignorant or outright hostility towards anything else.

GWombies.

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
So what does that say about people who play a game that is just a catalogue? Aside from astounding loyalty, that is...

Rick Priestley: what a dreamboat.

Rather, I'd say that the company magazine, White Dwarf, is the catalog and the "game" is just a vehicle for enthusiasts of the GW Hobby to get together and show each other their collections.

 agnosto wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

The move to targeting collectors over modelers seems to be coming from their belief that this is what the bulk of their customers already are. They don't understand their own games or why people, particularly adults, would want to play them.

I don't understand why people, particularly rational people, would want to play them either. It's like they're sitting in the "design studio" (really just the remaining rules writer's cubicle) and all agape that people are still buying the rulebooks. That would also explain why nearly all the fluff is rehashed and the books are nearly all rushed, copy-paste jobs.

They get the intern to write the rules?

Someone would be willing to intern at GW? I'd hate to have that on my resume if I were serious about writing.

I knew someone who interned at SeaWorld with the hopes of working for a marine mammal organization afterward. They saw SeaWorld on her resume and asked "why the hell did you work for those people?". No job for her!

At the end of the day I'm just happy that Rick Priestly found a great home at Warlord. I know that many historical players have a gripe or two about bolt action but they have to admit it is a solid, playable rule set that is brining a ton of new blood into historical gaming. Though I must give Warlord et al. due credit for a good rule set and an increasingly nice range of plastics, it can not be ignored that at least some of their progress was spurred along by GW's recent policies.

When I first saw The Gates of Antares models I thought to myself that no one would be interested in them at all. Now I have to admit they have grown on me just a tiny bit.

 agnosto wrote:

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
So what does that say about people who play a game that is just a catalogue? Aside from astounding loyalty, that is...

Rick Priestley: what a dreamboat.

Rather, I'd say that the company magazine, White Dwarf, is the catalog and the "game" is just a vehicle for enthusiasts of the GW Hobby to get together and show each other their collections.

This... The game has been nothing more than something to do to share your models. Like playing fetch is a way to share your dogs at a dog park. People who take the game seriously and buy 7 of the same 90$ kit and spray them with home depo silver paint so they can play the game look foolish to the hobbyists and is not the actual market, but GW will gladly take the money of those people.

Pretty weird attitude of GW to have. After all, they know exactly how much of their revenue comes from the rules alone, as well as from starter kits, tape measures, objective/psychic cards, dice, templates, etc, which presumably aren't overwhelmingly bought by "collectors."

Not to mention that GW's painting tutorials (which are really, really good) receive significantly fewer views than the batreps of some of the big youtube accounts.

Taking it further, you could make a few conservative assumptions about numbers of people actively involved in organized play (from GTs to simply pick-up games at the local store). LVO, Adepticon, NOVA, and add a couple of larger events from Florida and Texas, and control for people attending several of those, and you'll get a sizable list of names. And for every person on that list, how many others in his/her local playgroup/playgroup across town? Ten? Twenty? How much revenue is a guy willing to travel across the US giving GW compared to the average customer? Out of GW's revenue of 32ish millions in North America, how much are you accounting for simply by those guys (i.e., large GT attendees plus extended gaming groups) alone? And there's, you know, Canada...

But hey, market research is otiose in a niche.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
So what does that say about people who play a game that is just a catalogue? Aside from astounding loyalty, that is...

Rick Priestley: what a dreamboat.

In all seriousness I've wondered why people stick with 40k knowing what kind of company GW is. Either they really don't care that they're being treated like clueless morons who buy anything, or they just figure they enjoy it so they'll deal. I used to chalk it up to just people not wanting to admit that they invested hundreds or even thousands of dollars in such a poor game so that's why people got defensive (because pointing it out makes them look stupid), but I really do see actual loyalty and fanaticism towards GW products, usually coupled with ignorant or outright hostility towards anything else.

GWombies.

Honestly, on paper, that could be me. I categorise myself as a painter who plays to have something to do to justify their investment. But, because I'm investing in models, not a game, I tend not to be too sensitive to criticism. That, and "importing" models with greater frequency.

But, over the last 18-24 months, the game has become less fun than the effort of loading up minis into a case and driving it all to my local club, then spending time organising a table, then (playing daemons primarily) doing all the before game admin, then getting to play a game which may or may not be entertaining, depending on the dice gods and whether or not myself and my opponent have built lists based on the same philosophy, or if one of us has brought fluffy list and another a competitive, or simply accidentally built a hard counter to the other, is just not worth the effort.

Or, as I do more and more frequently, just play X Wing, where I can carry everything I need in a generously proportioned pencil case, and can have a fun game even if I knock up a crappy list in 5 mins and my opponent decides to replicate the list that won the last World Championship.

angelofvengeance wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
And model design...

Hmm model design- you have seen the retardfist right? Terrible.

Spoiler:

It's a peculiar thing on the Internet where people seem to think providing one specific exception somehow disproves a general point. Forge World models are almost uniformly excellent, the odd duffer doesn't make this less true.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
So what does that say about people who play a game that is just a catalogue? Aside from astounding loyalty, that is...

Rick Priestley: what a dreamboat.

In all seriousness I've wondered why people stick with 40k knowing what kind of company GW is. Either they really don't care that they're being treated like clueless morons who buy anything, or they just figure they enjoy it so they'll deal. I used to chalk it up to just people not wanting to admit that they invested hundreds or even thousands of dollars in such a poor game so that's why people got defensive (because pointing it out makes them look stupid), but I really do see actual loyalty and fanaticism towards GW products, usually coupled with ignorant or outright hostility towards anything else.

GWombies.

As to the bolded part, read this article, and you'll understand their position better:

http://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/how-the-sunk-cost-fallacy-makes-you-act-stupid.html

Saldiven wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
So what does that say about people who play a game that is just a catalogue? Aside from astounding loyalty, that is...

Rick Priestley: what a dreamboat.

In all seriousness I've wondered why people stick with 40k knowing what kind of company GW is. Either they really don't care that they're being treated like clueless morons who buy anything, or they just figure they enjoy it so they'll deal. I used to chalk it up to just people not wanting to admit that they invested hundreds or even thousands of dollars in such a poor game so that's why people got defensive (because pointing it out makes them look stupid), but I really do see actual loyalty and fanaticism towards GW products, usually coupled with ignorant or outright hostility towards anything else.

GWombies.

As to the bolded part, read this article, and you'll understand their position better:

http://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/how-the-sunk-cost-fallacy-makes-you-act-stupid.html

That pretty much sums up my time playing 40k. I kept hoping for the light at the end of the tunnel, for that moment of when they are great again.

Deep down I have known this will never come since they no longer consider gamers a part of the hobby, only collectors.

WHFB 9th seems like the future they are moving towards. Less emphasis on a large scale game thus less emphasis on volumes of rules mean they can focus on minis more. I wouldn't doubt it if GW was using 9th Ed. as a chance to test this new business practice and applying it to 40k if it does work. Maybe not the shake up End Times has caused, since 40k is the more successful child, but a bigger shift to the 9th Ed. model.

Saldiven wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
So what does that say about people who play a game that is just a catalogue? Aside from astounding loyalty, that is...

Rick Priestley: what a dreamboat.

In all seriousness I've wondered why people stick with 40k knowing what kind of company GW is. Either they really don't care that they're being treated like clueless morons who buy anything, or they just figure they enjoy it so they'll deal. I used to chalk it up to just people not wanting to admit that they invested hundreds or even thousands of dollars in such a poor game so that's why people got defensive (because pointing it out makes them look stupid), but I really do see actual loyalty and fanaticism towards GW products, usually coupled with ignorant or outright hostility towards anything else.

GWombies.

As to the bolded part, read this article, and you'll understand their position better:

http://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/how-the-sunk-cost-fallacy-makes-you-act-stupid.html

I have for years tried talking my older brother into trying other games besides GW and his reply is I am in to deep. I listen to him complain about the direction 40k and WHFB all the time but he keeps going back. It's like a abusive relationship that he can't just walk away from.

Why not use GW minatures with other rule sets?

 insaniak wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I find this interesting but also a bit disheartened. It confirms that GW is aware of many of the sentiments of its fan base but that its really insistent on giving up on the game and ignore those player sentiments.

Well, no, it confirms that Rick Priestly is aware of the sentiments of its fan base, and suggests that GW has no idea who their customers are or what they want, which is an idea that is backed up by Tom Kirby proudly announcing in their financials that they don't do market research.

The move to targeting collectors over modelers seems to be coming from their belief that this is what the bulk of their customers already are. They don't understand their own games or why people, particularly adults, would want to play them.

Honestly I forgot that Rick Priestley had left GW. So many of us hold on hoping this will all get better buying only the occasional model... Somehow to GW this looks like we're collectors. If the majority of us have become collectors it's only a consequence of GWs poor rules. GW should be afraid if they see themselves as a collectables company. Even amongst collectors the game was the main vector for entry into the hobby. I don't believe we are a collectors market. If we were I think it would show on the second-hand markets like eBay or bartertown but the vast majority of ads are more concerned with acquiring or selling armies rather than collectors pieces.

He's very diplomatic given that their shift towards collectors items and dumping any real interest in quality rulesets and new products led to him being surplus to requirement. Its clear they didn't value his contribution when they scrapped warhammer historical.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
He's very diplomatic given that their shift towards collectors items and dumping any real interest in quality rulesets and new products led to him being surplus to requirement. Its clear they didn't value his contribution when they scrapped warhammer historical.

Which (speaking of Warhammer Historicals) they dumped in the most customer-hateful manner possible. They didn't sell down on the books. They didn't make them available as pdfs for purchase on Black Library (or wherever). They stopped selling them and (presumably) destroyed all their remaining stock. WTF?

"We could sell you this book we've already printed...but we're not gonna!"

It would be interesting to understand WHEN exactly ( and possibly related who and why) GW started espousing collection over gaming?

Da Butcha wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
He's very diplomatic given that their shift towards collectors items and dumping any real interest in quality rulesets and new products led to him being surplus to requirement. Its clear they didn't value his contribution when they scrapped warhammer historical.

Which (speaking of Warhammer Historicals) they dumped in the most customer-hateful manner possible. They didn't sell down on the books. They didn't make them available as pdfs for purchase on Black Library (or wherever). They stopped selling them and (presumably) destroyed all their remaining stock. WTF?

"We could sell you this book we've already printed...but we're not gonna!"

The fact that they would rather destroy stock rather than sell it at a discount and make any profit at all is what's so crazy. They did the same with Dreadfleet IIRC, because they didn't want to give the impression that you could just wait a few months and it would go on sale. Talk about cutting off the nose to spite the face.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KiloFiX wrote:
It would be interesting to understand WHEN exactly ( and possibly related who and why) GW started espousing collection over gaming?

Well, they always did to a point. As far back as I recall they always made references to Warhammer being a way to show off pretty figures and play games, but at the time you had a lot of "oldschool" members of the design staff who were ingrained in historical gaming (Rick Priestly, Nigel Stillman, etc.) so still cared about making a game, even if the primary goal was to sell figures. It's just degraded over time to where they stopped caring about the game entirely, perhaps when they went public and became beholden to shareholders and the concept of profit at any cost.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Hanskrampf wrote:

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
Kinda makes you think that the big rush for 7th to get all the codexes current is a set up for the big ending. By that I mean, GW pretty much just keeping the IP and no longer producing any new rules.

I still hope they stop making rules and outsource them to FFG or some other company.

I wouldn't say no to that...

I wouldn't either.

Because you and I both know someone who would be very excited to see a certain someone do some really good rules for Kasrkin.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
He's very diplomatic given that their shift towards collectors items and dumping any real interest in quality rulesets and new products led to him being surplus to requirement. Its clear they didn't value his contribution when they scrapped warhammer historical.

It had more to do with GW never wanting a Historical division to begin with, which is why they so ruthlessly scrapped it when the contract had run its course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also re: FFG doing 40k. Let them improve their distribution model first. I'd hate having to wait months upon months for the next codex: *insert spunkgargleweewee here* to finally arrive in stores outside of the US.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 KiloFiX wrote:
It would be interesting to understand WHEN exactly ( and possibly related who and why) GW started espousing collection over gaming?

Well, they always did to a point. As far back as I recall they always made references to Warhammer being a way to show off pretty figures and play games, but at the time you had a lot of "oldschool" members of the design staff who were ingrained in historical gaming (Rick Priestly, Nigel Stillman, etc.) so still cared about making a game, even if the primary goal was to sell figures. It's just degraded over time to where they stopped caring about the game entirely, perhaps when they went public and became beholden to shareholders and the concept of profit at any cost.

Hasbro has to answer to shareholders but you don't see Wizards mismanaging their customer relations in the way GW does. They offer great store support and release events, they communicate their ideas and plans through their website and they offer and range of products supporting different ways to play (how many formats of MtG are there). Meanwhile GW give the impression that they think people will buy stuff their way or it's the highway, and no they don't want to talk about it either.

It's funny that small games companies get involved online and are responsive, and a huge company like Wizards communicates with its gamers and is open about their design process. And then there's GW inberween, who think wall of silence is the best approach.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Butcha wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
He's very diplomatic given that their shift towards collectors items and dumping any real interest in quality rulesets and new products led to him being surplus to requirement. Its clear they didn't value his contribution when they scrapped warhammer historical.

Which (speaking of Warhammer Historicals) they dumped in the most customer-hateful manner possible. They didn't sell down on the books. They didn't make them available as pdfs for purchase on Black Library (or wherever). They stopped selling them and (presumably) destroyed all their remaining stock. WTF?

"We could sell you this book we've already printed...but we're not gonna!"

Who remembers Warhamner Trafalgar? Imagine a fantasy version of that instead of Dreadfuleet.

 Thud wrote:
Pretty weird attitude of GW to have. After all, they know exactly how much of their revenue comes from the rules alone, as well as from starter kits, tape measures, objective/psychic cards, dice, templates, etc, which presumably aren't overwhelmingly bought by "collectors.".

Well, yes... but not the move towards the codexes being prettier, less practical and coincidentally, more expensive.

They think we buy the books because they're pretty.



Which, admittedly, is about the only reason to buy them, currently.

 BrookM wrote:

Also re: FFG doing 40k. Let them improve their distribution model first. I'd hate having to wait months upon months for the next codex: *insert spunkgargleweewee here* to finally arrive in stores outside of the US.

Asmodee already have massively superior European distribution, but weren't so well set up in the States. Hence the recent merger with FFG, so that problem is already a long way towards solved.

WayneTheGame wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KiloFiX wrote:
It would be interesting to understand WHEN exactly ( and possibly related who and why) GW started espousing collection over gaming?

Well, they always did to a point. As far back as I recall they always made references to Warhammer being a way to show off pretty figures and play games, but at the time you had a lot of "oldschool" members of the design staff who were ingrained in historical gaming (Rick Priestly, Nigel Stillman, etc.) so still cared about making a game, even if the primary goal was to sell figures. It's just degraded over time to where they stopped caring about the game entirely, perhaps when they went public and became beholden to shareholders and the concept of profit at any cost.

The 'quote' which started this concept was I believe in 2008 when Jervis Johnson said something like 2/3rds of their customers buy the models to collect and never play the game at a Gamesday.

But early 2000s when they that GTs... It really was more about having excuse to display amazing models than winning. 'Winning' was actually mocked and the big status was appearance scores... Why? Because 3rd edition was a broken, unplayable mess and needed heavy comp to make the game playable so there was no point in claiming any form of skill or tactics in any of the games. So as soon as people had to basically hold themselves back to have even a valid functioning game, you had two camps... the "LEGAL = FAIR" group and the "HOBBYIST" group. "LEGAL = FAIR" was universally seen as a joke, and a lot of those people had their armies thrown out of tourneys by judges comps scores and other soft scores.

Fast forward to 2007-2008 when 5th hit and the rules actually became somewhat playable, the "LEGAL = FAIR" crew who was basically unwelcome for a solid 8 years of 3rd edition made a comeback and has snowballed into what we have right now. But by that point when the rules got good enough to even stand on their own, the "we make models for hobbyists and collectors, the game is not important" had already had a decade+ of entrenchment in the corporate philosophies.

So it was always like this... but didn't get said really until competitive 40k began to rise after 5th edition launch. If you didn't play in 3rd edition tourneys, you really have no idea how loose and unplayable the rules used to be and why games were really loose and no one could take competition seriously because there simply was no fairness.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
So what does that say about people who play a game that is just a catalogue? Aside from astounding loyalty, that is...

Rick Priestley: what a dreamboat.

In all seriousness I've wondered why people stick with 40k knowing what kind of company GW is. Either they really don't care that they're being treated like clueless morons who buy anything, or they just figure they enjoy it so they'll deal. I used to chalk it up to just people not wanting to admit that they invested hundreds or even thousands of dollars in such a poor game so that's why people got defensive (because pointing it out makes them look stupid), but I really do see actual loyalty and fanaticism towards GW products, usually coupled with ignorant or outright hostility towards anything else.

GWombies.

I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I don't give a gak what the company is thinking as long as I enjoy their product, and I enjoy everything about 40k, so I will continue buying it until I dont. It's that simple. I also don't let the incredible cynisim and vitriol against GW color my opinion on their products, even though I certainly agree with some of the more measured reactions. I haven't found any other game that has the same combination of great models, great in-depth fluff, fun rules (note: not saying "balanced") and a reliable and strong player base and community. I play and enjoy other companies games, but 40k is the only one that hits all the right spots.

Rick Priestly is awesome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pete Melvin wrote:
It should be said that Lord P. has not worked for GW for some years, but clearly he saw the direction they were going while he was there and didn't like it.
I wouldn't be surprised if thats still the case but you know, omnia mutantur.

The wargaming business community is small and pretty darn intimate. The wargaming business community in the UK is even more so. Heck, I believe Rick's wife currently works for GW. Those guys all know each other, and have known each other for years. In the company, out of the company, it isn't as if they don't keep in touch.

Priestly may no longer be a GW employee, but that doesn't mean he isn't savvy to what is going on within GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

locarno24 wrote:
They're actually damn good at the Background/RPG side of things, as well.

FFG's 40K fluff is far superior to GW's in my opinion. FFG still 'gets' what 40K is about, largely. Like any company, FFG isn't perfect, but the pros, in my view, tend to far outweigh the cons.

I think GW is making the smart business call to concentrate on those things that drive profit.

If you look at the gaming value from a typical $100-150 Kickstarter board game, it's no contest. The sheer amount of replayability is unparalleled compared to GW stuff. And it plays right out of the box.

Sure, you have to wait for the KS to deliver, and it's typically months to a year late, but wow do you get stuff.

With CMoN, etc obliterating the GW's "high value" starter sets with well-themed things that play right out of the box, GW has to move to their niche of complex showcase kits - things that the KS haven't really delivered on. Yet.

nkelsch wrote:


The 'quote' which started this concept was I believe in 2008 when Jervis Johnson said something like 2/3rds of their customers buy the models to collect and never play the game at a Gamesday.

Fast forward to 2007-2008 when 5th hit and the rules actually became somewhat playable, the "LEGAL = FAIR" crew who was basically unwelcome for a solid 8 years of 3rd edition made a comeback and has snowballed into what we have right now. But by that point when the rules got good enough to even stand on their own, the "we make models for hobbyists and collectors, the game is not important" had already had a decade+ of entrenchment in the corporate philosophies.

So it was always like this... but didn't get said really until competitive 40k began to rise after 5th edition launch. If you didn't play in 3rd edition tourneys, you really have no idea how loose and unplayable the rules used to be and why games were really loose and no one could take competition seriously because there simply was no fairness.

Indeed.

There is some truth to Priestley's quote, but essentially he is a rival now and it's in his interest to do them down.

Brands today are never as good as the halcyon days in the past when we worked for them... that's my attitude anyway!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I think GW is making the smart business call to concentrate on those things that drive profit.

If you look at the gaming value from a typical $100-150 Kickstarter board game, it's no contest. The sheer amount of replayability is unparalleled compared to GW stuff. And it plays right out of the box.

Sure, you have to wait for the KS to deliver, and it's typically months to a year late, but wow do you get stuff.

With CMoN, etc obliterating the GW's "high value" starter sets with well-themed things that play right out of the box, GW has to move to their niche of complex showcase kits - things that the KS haven't really delivered on. Yet.

I think the smart thing to do would be to do market research, adapt to the changing market and expand.

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

There is some truth to Priestley's quote, but essentially he is a rival now and it's in his interest to do them down.

Priestly has a ton of very good reasons to 'do GW down', but in my experience his is absolutely not the kind of person to do that for the sake of it.

Priestly is a game designer. That's what's he has done for decades. Table top game design is his livelihood. Table top game design is likely his passion. With this context in mind, the subtext of Priestly's comments is obvious.

Priestly enjoyed making games at Games Workshop until the company sidelined game design, choked off the variety of specialist games, and began to shoot down ideas to create and support new and different games. Rick became a relic in the company, and my guess is that he found it frustrating to not be allowed to develop new, creative games. So he left.

All he's saying is that GW doesn't much care about games anymore, which is obvious.

Rick found a place at Warlord where he continues to ply his trade: game design. He's developing new, creative games, and I bet he is much happier to be working for a company that allows him to do that. There's really not much more to read into his FB posts.