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.

You're right.
GW had once a button "Gaming" on the homepage.
This has been replaced by "Painting and Modeling".

The rule set is important at least among the players I know.
Recently there was a threat about the playability of 40k.
The main tenor has been that it is only playable in a closed group.

Assumption of greater expertise in everything, especially business, in only 12 posts with no credentials, to the point of trolling...

Sock puppet?

Mr. Correct wrote:
I think it's amusing that there are people who actually think GW would make more money if they wrote better rules or put more research into their writing. Such a naive and childlike understanding of the world, these people have. Such baffling ignorance of the way business works in the real world.

The truth of course is that rules are worthless. They're just words arbitrarily scrawled onto a piece of paper. GW is a company that makes models, and they only publish rules as an accessory for the models. They couldn't care less if you like the game or even if you play the game. They just want you to buy the models.

The quality of rule writing and testing have never affected a game's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package with pretty playing pieces is worth ten billion perfectly written rulesets.

I don't understand why anyone but the sub 1% (who can paint an army to any kind of display standard) would want to spend so much money on models for the sake of models.

Making a joke game just to sell models sounds like foolishness to me.

Mr. Correct wrote:
I think it's amusing that there are people who actually think GW would make more money if they wrote better rules or put more research into their writing. Such a naive and childlike understanding of the world, these people have. Such baffling ignorance of the way business works in the real world.

The truth of course is that rules are worthless. They're just words arbitrarily scrawled onto a piece of paper. GW is a company that makes models, and they only publish rules as an accessory for the models. They couldn't care less if you like the game or even if you play the game. They just want you to buy the models.

The quality of rule writing and testing have never affected a game's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package with pretty playing pieces is worth ten billion perfectly written rulesets.

Why else do the majority of people buy the models, if not to play the game? If the rules are bad, less people will play the game, and so less people will buy the models. If the rules were written well, more people would probably play (there's other factors such as price obviously) and so more models would be sold. The fact that GW doesn't care whether we like the rules or not doesn't mean that they shouldn't care, or that it doesn't affect sales. The quality of rules definitely does affect a games success these days, I think, because of how much more competition there is. It didn't affect GW 30 years ago because they were about the only Wargaming company around. Now a days there's plenty of attractive alternatives, with better models, better rules, or both.

Mr. Correct wrote:
I think it's amusing that there are people who actually think GW would make more money if they wrote better rules or put more research into their writing. Such a naive and childlike understanding of the world, these people have. Such baffling ignorance of the way business works in the real world.

The truth of course is that rules are worthless. They're just words arbitrarily scrawled onto a piece of paper. GW is a company that makes models, and they only publish rules as an accessory for the models. They couldn't care less if you like the game or even if you play the game. They just want you to buy the models.

The quality of rule writing and testing have never affected a game's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package with pretty playing pieces is worth ten billion perfectly written rulesets.

On the flip side, the majority of the customers do play the game. The community of people who simply paint models aren't enough to sustain a company the size of Games Workshop. A figure here and there with a few weeks effort put into it is nice for the buyer, but for the seller, well, they need to pay wages, rent, manufacturing costs, etc.

A badly written ruleset doesn't give the larger mass of customers a reason to buy a model - while it might be a pretty model, if it doesn't see the tabletop, there's no reason to spend the money on it. A good example is Tyranids - they were once the best selling xenos model line they had, in 4th edition when they had a very powerful army list and were a top teir competitive army. Ever since 5th edition? Yeah, they're languishing at the bottom. They are maybe the best realised insectoid alien race model range on the market right now, but those models aren't selling themselves on looks, because there's a terrible army list that fails to work within the framework of the game rules.

Of course, some companies can get away with surviving on model sales alone. Corvus Belli gives their rules away for free, and through market research they know a significant amount of customers buy their models simply to paint, for whom they also made a specialty range of models. It also helps that they make some of the most amazingly detailed mass producton sci fi miniatures available right now. The painters really get their moneys worth. They still, however, maintain a balanced ruleset with balanced army lists because they know that the majority of the cusomters play the game, and people aren't going to buy a model that doesn't have an effect in the game worth considering (case in point, dropping their own insectoid alien race range, the Exrah, due to flagging sales due to in game impact).

Indeed, the rule set is decisive.
Here we noticed that with the 6th and 7th Ed of 40k, players were more and more looking for alternative tabletop games.
A large majority went into WMH and recently Boltaction, Infinity, and Xwing are played at the major gaming hours.

Good rules explains why Necrons sell, and Tyranids don't, but why do Ork models sell if good rules are the only reason?

No ones saying good rules are the only reason things sell, just that they are a big part of why.

 r_squared wrote:
Good rules explains why Necrons sell, and Tyranids don't, but why do Ork models sell if good rules are the only reason?

Orks defy logic.

 r_squared wrote:
Good rules explains why Necrons sell, and Tyranids don't, but why do Ork models sell if good rules are the only reason?

Because Orkses think they are the funnest, so they are the funnest.

Mr Correct, please tell me then why I have ceased purchasing from GW?

The insane prices?

The terrible rules?

The "My first tucker toy truck" theme that the recent models have taken?

All of the above?

Some of the stuff I've read in the investors preambles is insane, not so much unintelligent as what is this guy smoking? Things like boasting how they hire for attitude not skill (I hope the reality is that you do need to show skill and experience to get senior positions but it's still a funny thing to proclaim), how market research is 'otiose in a niche' because their customers buy what they sell, complaining how the legal system is set up to prevent 'stealing pigs' and the lengthy ramble about how 3D printing isn't ever going to be a thing even over a decade away (this seems shortsighted, technology shifts a lot in ten years), and finally dismissing things like Pokemon because 'who remembers them'.

The Chapterhouse case had many moments from senior staff like Alan Merrett, head of IP, having basic IP law explained to him, and his making comments about 'people buy what we sell'.

It adds up to a company run by people who seemingly have their heads wedged up their asses. Maybe they're not unintelligent, but they seriously need some new people that can bring a fresh perspective to things instead of just promoting another long term board member to CEO to fuel the yes-man culture around Kirby.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

I thought we established in another thread that miniature wargaming isn't growing at all, but is rather stable.

The comes entirely from a single US distributor's data. There is no, and will never be, hard figures on the overall size of wargaming. However the sheer range of toy soldiers today is unprecedented, so in that sense Wargaming is growing and its entirely possible, even probable, that it is growing economically as well.

With more buyers sidestepping the distribution chain, by going directly to the game companies.

Hell, Paizo has a subscription model! So people get their $20 - $50 worth of RPG material mailed right to them every month.

The Pathfinder Battles minis are selling out on a regular basis, and also have a subscription model.

Many, many smaller companies have given up on the distributors entirely, and rely on direct sales.

Which, I believe is where GW is headed - rather than increasing sales they are moving to a direct sales model.

Despite being the most widely distributed of the tabletop games.

Kirby would rather that GW get a bigger piece of a smaller pie - looking at percentages, not volume.

The Auld Grump

Andredre wrote:

destrucifier wrote:
The problem is that the fans think they're smarter than GW. They think they're smarter than everybody. This is a big part of why product lines like WHFB collapsed. The neckbeards scare away everybody who takes a casual interest with their overwhelming arrogance and pettiness.

True.

Been to Gencon multiple times. Quoted for eternal truth.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Andredre wrote:

destrucifier wrote:
The problem is that the fans think they're smarter than GW. They think they're smarter than everybody. This is a big part of why product lines like WHFB collapsed. The neckbeards scare away everybody who takes a casual interest with their overwhelming arrogance and pettiness.

True.

Been to Gencon multiple times. Quoted for eternal truth.

Quoted for eternal ridiculousness. Neckbeards are a problem, but when you lay the many, many failures of GW and it's games - and their obvious, internally-generated causes - at their feet, you're just taking scapegoating to an extreme length.

Why not blame the customer?

If its good enough for GW...

GW seemed hugely popular when I was younger, there was a great following for many games like Necromunda. All that is gone along with the goodwill. I don't think that's on the customer, GW have changed the way they operate and its cost them business.

destrucifier wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
JJ is probably the most intelligent employee at GW ever.

This doesn't sound like sarcasm at all.

Actually, it's probably accurate. Look at who his competition in the company is for the title of "most intelligent". You got a shampoo salesman who insults his customer base publicly playing CEO and a gym teacher playing IT wizard. Jervis is practically a rocket scientist by comparison.

Also, I'm surprised I was even able to respond in this thread. Figured it would last 4 posts before being shut.

Mr. Correct wrote:
I think it's amusing that there are people who actually think GW would make more money if they wrote better rules or put more research into their writing. Such a naive and childlike understanding of the world, these people have. Such baffling ignorance of the way business works in the real world.

The truth of course is that rules are worthless. They're just words arbitrarily scrawled onto a piece of paper. GW is a company that makes models, and they only publish rules as an accessory for the models. They couldn't care less if you like the game or even if you play the game. They just want you to buy the models.

The quality of rule writing and testing have never affected a game's success in the marketplace and they never will. One attractive package with pretty playing pieces is worth ten billion perfectly written rulesets.

Mr Correct, this is exactly what GW managment says. Then look at the stock price fundamentals. Look at Dreadfleet. Look at FFG's rapid growth. Look at Hasbro.

Can you enlighten us children about the world of business? Tell us about your personal experience? Are you an international financeer, entrepeneur, run a multi-million dollar corporation, or what qualifies you to call other posters "children"? Or perhaps can you enlighten us to what makes you think that this "business as usual" model of GW is working? I have been an entrepeneur. I have started a still successful businesses and sold it. I sell internationally currently. And I am piloting my main current business, putting two kids through college and supporting a family. I don't feel as if my opinion is naive or childish....

 timetowaste85 wrote:

destrucifier wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
JJ is probably the most intelligent employee at GW ever.

This doesn't sound like sarcasm at all.

Actually, it's probably accurate. Look at who his competition in the company is for the title of "most intelligent". You got a shampoo salesman who insults his customer base publicly playing CEO and a gym teacher playing IT wizard. Jervis is practically a rocket scientist by comparison.

Also, I'm surprised I was even able to respond in this thread. Figured it would last 4 posts before being shut.

And shall we add the person in charge of IP, for extra comic relief? Who didn't know the difference between Trademark and Copyright?

In one corner you have the neckbeards, and in the other you have the fanboys.

Two teams enter... only the survivors leave. (My bet is on the neckbeards - they're big and wily.)

The Auld Grump - I can't grow a neckbeard... I have a hard enough time growing a pencil mustache.

 Vermis wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:

Andredre wrote:

destrucifier wrote:
The problem is that the fans think they're smarter than GW. They think they're smarter than everybody. This is a big part of why product lines like WHFB collapsed. The neckbeards scare away everybody who takes a casual interest with their overwhelming arrogance and pettiness.

True.

Been to Gencon multiple times. Quoted for eternal truth.

Quoted for eternal ridiculousness. Neckbeards are a problem, but when you lay the many, many failures of GW and it's games - and their obvious, internally-generated causes - at their feet, you're just taking scapegoating to an extreme length.

My response was in regards to the underlined portion. GW makes horrible rules and business decisions both. But a helluva lot of what will kill games is ravenous fans who glom onto you and try to force you to do everything their way. I have had situations where my wife was at either GenCon or the LGS with me, and had some rabid fan hear a comment of hers, butt in, and try to go into great depth about something in a negative fashion.

Why not blame the customer?

If its good enough for GW...

Lots of customers of wargames (what few there are near me) are a huge part of why I only play at home with buddies. I don't like to constantly hear about how "wrong" I am about some army idea that I am working on that I find fun, because some neckbeard thinks I should be playing Online Meta build "X", or top-tier army "Y" if I "want to do anything other than waste my time". Luckily, years of experience knowing what I need for my personal enjoyment lets me ignore them, but lots of newbies could easily be driven away.

But yes, GW confuses the ever-loving hell out of me sometimes, with the tangents they will take with their games. They seem overtly hostile to themselves, sometimes, and need to take a look at what went on in the years that got them the most successful.

 Vermis wrote:
Assumption of greater expertise in everything, especially business, in only 12 posts with no credentials, to the point of trolling...

Sock puppet?

Exalt

I don't think a small portion of over zealous, socially inept fans was, is, or will be a significant factor of a game's success or failure. A small part, maybe, but a big part of why Fantasy failed? That'd take some serious argumentation to convince me.

Maybe not all over, but a given area it sure as hell can. There have been instances where my wife was picking up a box of minis for a gift for me. She new they were the exact unit that I was looking for, and had random customers in the aisle butt in over her shoulder and tell her they were a poor choice to get someone for a gift, because some other unit in their opinion was "much" better.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
In a given area it sure as hell can.

But that given area may be insignificant to the overall game's success or failure.

Depends on the area. I'll bet a newbie looking at Age of Sigmar here on Dakka is sure as hell going to get pushed away from the game far more effectively that anything GW marketing would do, regardless of where they are going to be gaming, unless that area has something overwhelmingly positive to counteract that.

It all depends. I know you think I am eternally wrong, but fellow customers at a place a gamer plans on playing such a game at can make a much larger impact (positive or negative) on sales than a Company's ad campaigns. I know of places where a store can move tons of Warmachine/Hordes (even earlier in it's lifespan than now, like the Prime 1.0/pre Hordes days where it was a teeny company) but you will see 40K of all shapes and sizes stock sit stagnant for months. And earlier in that games lifespan it was healthy and growing, but not even close to the wider 40K popularity.

Modern GW still sucks at being a likeable company versus pre-2000 GW though.

A rabid, over enthusiastic element is a normal element of fandom, and I don't see them being blamed for putting people off a more casual interest in any movie series, TV series, pop group, celebrity etc etc.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Depends on the area. I'll bet a newbie looking at Age of Sigmar here on Dakka is sure as hell going to get pushed away from the game far more effectively that anything GW marketing would do, regardless of where they are going to be gaming, unless that area has something overwhelmingly positive to counteract that.

It all depends. I know you think I am eternally wrong, but fellow customers at a place a gamer plans on playing such a game at can make a much larger impact (positive or negative) on sales than a Company's ad campaigns.

Modern GW still sucks at being a likeable company versus pre-2000 GW though.

I guess my point is that the personalities of a select few gamers in certain areas are a much smaller determinant of success or failure than factors like price, value, quality of the rules, and other business practices.

I don't doubt for a second some mouth breather in a GW could ruin anyone's desire to play at that given location, or that someone may be put off from playing a game based on online reviews (though really, if there's that much negativity around a product, it stands to reason it may not be worth buying), but those factors are not the big part of the reason fantasy failed as was posted earlier.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Maybe not all over, but a given area it sure as hell can. There have been instances where my wife was picking up a box of minis for a gift for me. She new they were the exact unit that I was looking for, and had random customers in the aisle butt in over her shoulder and tell her they were a poor choice to get someone for a gift, because some other unit in their opinion was "much" better.

Yep. There was a socially inept group of about 6 people at my FLGS that ended up being banned because of hygene issues and getting into people's faces as they were trying to play games or shop. The times they played any games usually devolved into arguments or loud sex jokes.

Sounds a bit like a club I haven't been to in a while. But that hasn't put me off the games they play or put an assumption in my head that they're representative of all those games' players. To wit...

Blacksails wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
In a given area it sure as hell can.

But that given area may be insignificant to the overall game's success or failure.

Isn't it the old 'WFB is healthy 'cos loads play it round here' argument, but kinda-sorta in reverse?

Azreal13 wrote:A rabid, over enthusiastic element is a normal element of fandom

Remember, 'fan' = contraction of 'fanatic'.