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 community backlash is probably ignorable from GW, more than normal backlash.

WHFB has not sold well in over decade, and was a losing market for the past half decade.

There was no market research to do, no subtle change to FB was keeping it around.

The background was not superseded, it was progressed. - That some few people cared that it progressed in a way they did not like is not important to GW financially.

The only thing AoS changed from the old FB was the gameplay.

The problem with the gaming community, especially on gaming forums, is that there are people that historically played FB, or still played FB, but they made up a tiny miniscule customer base. That -some- of these people were upset that FB shifted massively in gameplay, and the storyline progressed did not and does not matter from the GW business perspective. FB had been dead for a long time, and they did manage to get some more money out of it in the 'end times' releases, it was a losing prospect and had been for a long time. There were not any measurable amounts of new players into the game, and most of the old players were not buying near armies/models. In effect upsetting these people to try and bring life into the setting did not matter because the sales reflected losses over many years and continuing to appease the people left was not bringing new people in, it was just keeping a dead thing on life support at the cost of the company.

AoS is a decent game system, its release could have been better like the shift in 40k to mini apoc which happend with 6th when some people shoved their heads into the ground and refused to accept LoW/fortifications/D- Weapons from an official rules source[stronghold, and escalation or whatever], and then in 7th these rules were just put into rules to make players accept it as part of the core rules. However from a financial standpoint it was probably seen as a waste of time and money to gradually shift a dead thing onto its side and add more things to it when no one was buying into it. Might as well just progress the canon, and drastically shift the gameplay with the rules change.

Could some of the few players who still played WFB be appeased/made happier with a slow shift to AoS in a few editions of FB? Yes. Was it worth it? GW deemed financially it was a waste of time. Judging from how AoS sold out multiple times at stores I have seen, and the starter set is still selling out at the FLGS everytime it comes in here...I would say FB is doing better than it was, or there are a lot of new Khorne Daemonkin converted armies

I'm kinda hoping with the new specialist games thing they'll release a new warhammer ye olde worlde book that will bring the old game back as a 9th edition kinda thing maybe with free army list PDFs so they don't have release new army books. They would just have to do some tweaking to unit sizes since the round bases are bigger. Would be cool if they could also release some movement trays like they had for War of the Rings

IMO simply adding a single page of rules to AoS on an alternate method of picking forces for battles based on using slots, or wounds, would go pretty far for the community. Leaving the current method, and adding- much like how unbound was pretty much a failure for 40k, but by having bound and unbound it doesn't matter.

Imagine if 40k had only unbound rules for making armies in all its books.

blaktoof wrote:
Imagine if 40k had only unbound rules for making armies in all its books.

You shouldn't post things like that, GW could be reading these forums.

 oni wrote:
Pretty much the reaction I anticipated... A warranted one no doubt. I have come to find that my views and opinions on AoS tend to contradict most of those here on Dakka - that's OK, it is what it is.

I base my point of view on the few local communities I can directly observe and while my scope is limited and may differ from the rest of you, it holds true (in my opinion) for the player bases I can directly observe.

Your logic is flawed, that's why so many people contradict your opinion.

There is not now, nor ever will there be, a responsibility on the consumer to be excited for a product. That lies firmly and permanently at the feet of the maker of that product.

That so many people were unwilling to play AOS as it stood simply demonstrates that GW had made a product nobody wanted*, that so many people were willing to try and make it work demonstrates the enormous enthusiasm for GW products that still exists, despite GW's repeated attempts to squander it.

What you've observed has no impact on this, it doesn't even matter if people have modified or refused to play AOS for completely spurious reasons, or even completely invalid ones, the fact remains that it was GW who were responsible for managing that reaction, and GW who have apparently ultimately failed at it. What you have observed is that failure in action.



*and before someone pulls me up on "nobody" I'll ask them to provide a pre-launch example of someone calling for GW to scrap all the Fantasy fluff and abandon all pretence at structure or balance to back it up.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 oni wrote:
Pretty much the reaction I anticipated... A warranted one no doubt. I have come to find that my views and opinions on AoS tend to contradict most of those here on Dakka - that's OK, it is what it is.

I base my point of view on the few local communities I can directly observe and while my scope is limited and may differ from the rest of you, it holds true (in my opinion) for the player bases I can directly observe.

Your logic is flawed, that's why so many people contradict your opinion.

There is not now, nor ever will there be, a responsibility on the consumer to be excited for a product. That lies firmly and permanently at the feet of the maker of that product.

That so many people were unwilling to play AOS as it stood simply demonstrates that GW had made a product nobody wanted*, that so many people were willing to try and make it work demonstrates the enormous enthusiasm for GW products that still exists, despite GW's repeated attempts to squander it.

What you've observed has no impact on this, it doesn't even matter if people have modified or refused to play AOS for completely spurious reasons, or even completely invalid ones, the fact remains that it was GW who were responsible for managing that reaction, and GW who have apparently ultimately failed at it. What you have observed is that failure in action.



*and before someone pulls me up on "nobody" I'll ask them to provide a pre-launch example of someone calling for GW to scrap all the Fantasy fluff and abandon all pretence at structure or balance to back it up.

My logic is not flawed. My point of view merely comes from a different perspective - a perspective that is not your own and one which you seem to not understand at the moment (but that's OK, I did not convey it very clearly) and because of this you consider my logic to be flawed. Sadly I do not have time at the moment to delve deeper into this nor do I care to get into a pissing match.

 oni wrote:

My logic is not flawed. My point of view merely comes from a different perspective - a perspective that is not your own and one which you seem to not understand at the moment (but that's OK, I did not convey it very clearly) and because of this you consider my logic to be flawed. Sadly I do not have time at the moment to delve deeper into this nor do I care to get into a pissing match.

So you live in a complete different reality to the rest of the world?

Kay.

blaktoof wrote:

There was no market research to do, no subtle change to FB was keeping it around.

There's a realm of possibility between 'tweak how cavalry works in 9th ed' and 'burn it all down and widdle on the ashes'. I haven't paid much attention to WFB's rules since sixth ed, but since then it's still been ridiculously easy to see how the community reacted to them, and the specific reasons why people quit during seventh and eighth. None of them, as far as I saw, included "I don't like fantasy themes anymore" or "all of a sudden I hate block manoeuvre games. Weird huh?"
In fact, one of the overwhelming reasons given for the exodus to KoW was a desire for block manoeuvre. From hints and anecdotes that have been given, that style of play might still be more popular than 'shove all the toys into the middle of the table'.

Imagine how much better my grasp on the situation might be if I didn't just hang around a couple of gaming forums, but performed a lot of market research instead? There was a lot of it to do, and judging by how much GW and ex-GW fans express their views on the games they play (or would like to play again) it would have been stupidly easy. Tom Kirby sending the term 'otiose' roaring into the conscious of a lot of gamers doesn't change that.

Blaming the death of WFB on the appeal of the basic themes of the game, the 'uselessness' of market research, and (strangely, given that previous point) the obstinacy of gaming demographics, is daft, to say the least. It boils down to Oni's tack of blaming gamers for a game's failure.

 oni wrote:
Sure... GW could have done a better job introducing AoS, but it's my point of view that the player community is to blame for AoS's "failure to launch". Too few people were willing to try something new, to try the game rules as designed; instead rushing to develop a point system to apply to a game specifically designed not to need it. Where did this leave us... A fragmented player community who can't agree upon how to play the game and thusly avoids playing it altogether.

In other words, you're saying it's my fault that I don't like skirmish games, I don't like stripped down rules sets, I don't like Sigmarines, and I don't like a system with ZERO attempt at creating balanced games?

 oni wrote:

My logic is not flawed. My point of view merely comes from a different perspective - a perspective that is not your own and one which you seem to not understand at the moment (but that's OK, I did not convey it very clearly) and because of this you consider my logic to be flawed. Sadly I do not have time at the moment to delve deeper into this nor do I care to get into a pissing match.

Yeah, umm, no. It is.

It's never the consumer's job to get excited for a product.

It's definitely acceptable for a consumer to push something they like so they can share it with others and so the product they like will hopefully be a success.

It's not the consumer's job to make something worth liking, nor is it their job to want to jump in to something speculatively, like something (flaws or even no flaws), or adapt their tastes to something, and it's certainly not their job to make something function properly if it doesn't work (cough, balancing system, cough cough).

 oni wrote:
Pretty much the reaction I anticipated... A warranted one no doubt. I have come to find that my views and opinions on AoS tend to contradict most of those here on Dakka - that's OK, it is what it is.

I base my point of view on the few local communities I can directly observe and while my scope is limited and may differ from the rest of you, it holds true (in my opinion) for the player bases I can directly observe.

So, you are saying that your community is the one we can blame for GW's stupidity?

Good to know....

The Auld Grump

I do think that there is a great deal of people that made their mind up that they wouldn't like something without even thinking of giving it a chance with AoS.

I'd be wary of using Dakka as any barometer though. You have people that spent time and money on something over a long period, and therefore (rightly or wrongly) felt that they owned a part of it. Watching GW change things so much, when they already done so much to break other bonds with games these gamers loved, was too much.

So you get a lot of shouting loud about the failure, lots of point scoring. You also get a lot of people that are frustrated that it's not getting a chance, and those that like it and are fed up.

Personally, I think if they had gone down the route you suggest in the OP, it might have been better. But a lot of things would have been better. The worst thing about this mess is that there is a really playable 'friendly' game out there, with pretty models. But it's lost in a sea of people that are rightly annoyed that the game they loved isn't progressing.

Any then you have those that never played WHFB, but are hurt that GW have seemingly messed up their game of choice. So it's an easy target.

IDK, I was actually very ready for AoS to be my point to jump back into WHFB after very lightly playing it, and even after my initial shock, I wanted to see how people felt about the game before completely writing it off.

I mean, I'm far from in love with GW, but I'm willing to give 'em a chance- it's ballsy trying something new so I'd have been very much ready to at least get the core game if the rules had been sane, but I'm also not dropping $100+ on a game with poor-looking rules.

Thebiggesthat wrote:
You have people that spent time and money on something over a long period, and therefore (rightly or wrongly) felt that they owned a part of it. Watching GW change things so much, when they already done so much to break other bonds with games these gamers loved, was too much.

There is a very interesting article on Cracked.com today that resonates quite well with this and I fail to see how GW couldn't have foreseen this.

#5. Coca-Cola Ignored Market Research That People Didn't Want New Coke

Those of us who were around in the 1980s barely made it out of the Cola Wars alive. We've seen things, man. Seen and, more importantly, tasted.

What started out as some aggressive ad campaigns soon turned into a dire situation for Coke as customers abandoned the company's products for the sweeter taste of Pepsi. Coke's executives then felt they had to make a big change, leading to the most famous casualty of that time: The original formula for Coca-Cola was replaced with New Coke. It was at that point, according to one historian, that people "[couldn't] take it anymore."

But, the evidence was there all along that this new formula was going to fail -- the company just ignored it, possibly because its executives were too busy with the other kind of coke. It was the 1980s, after all.

Most people remember New Coke as tasting terrible. This wasn't actually true. In fact, when they tested it in focus groups, people preferred the new flavor. But, when participants were asked if they would still like it if that flavor replaced the original Coca-Cola, about 12 percent of people didn't just say no, they actually got angry.

That's the problem with being really successful at what you do. Coke wasn't just a drink people bought because they were thirsty. It was a mega-brand; it went beyond a drink to being associated with childhood memories and classic ad campaigns where Don Draper made the whole world sing that fething song. Coca-Cola was so ingrained in people's lives that they almost didn't notice it anymore. So, when faced with the idea that this part of their lives might change, even if they liked the new taste, they took it personally. And those 12 percent of people, while not enough to tank New Coke on their own, put enough peer pressure on the people in their focus groups that they skewed more negatively.

In other words, before launching New Coke, Coca-Cola had a perfect mini-example of what was going to happen in the real world. People would buy the new formula because they liked the taste, but a big enough segment of society was going to be very angry and very vocal and convince others to think like them. And, in the end, that is exactly what happened: Loyalty trumped flavor. After 79 days of calls, letter-writing campaigns, and protests, the company announced the original formula was coming back. And this was in 1985. If they tried something this dumb today, social media would take them down within 79 minutes.

People's problems with AoS go well beyond the rules. What GW has done to a core thing of many wargamer's lives is nothing short of vandalism. They've destroyed an entire world. A world that many wargamers grew up with, as with anything like that (like Coke above), you do feel like you own part of it and take it personally when someone tries to change that thing, even if it may be better; which is where the comparison ends, as AoS is not.

I agree for what it's worth.

I don't play AoS, because I don't like the way the story has gone, and it's a shame they have damaged this like this.

I have played games and enjoyed the experience however. I just don't like the setting. I dislike those that have written it off and gone on the offensive when it's mentioned though. Those people really don't help the hobby in my opinion.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Do no market research
Don't inform customers of whats planned until the very last moment
Price a new untested product at a premium rate
Supersede existing background for new, unknown, setting.
Discontinue existing ruleset that customers have invested in



...................blame the player community for failure to launch.



AoS will make a great case study in a few years time.

I feel like Fenrir's points are a really good representation of what went wrong with AOS. It had a lot to do with implementation, bore on by this idea that seems to permeate GW's company culture: "they buy what we make."

WHFB started a notable decline after 6th edition, but 8th edition didn't do anything to attempt to resolve the issues customers had with the game. Of course, the issues fans had came at direct conflict with GW's MO- which is to make more and more money from the same experience. Fans don't want to see unit sizes balloon and armies exist largely as wound counters, but for GW this is great...at least in the short term. In the long term it helped sink the game.

Thebiggesthat wrote:
I do think that there is a great deal of people that made their mind up that they wouldn't like something without even thinking of giving it a chance with AoS.

I'd be wary of using Dakka as any barometer though. You have people that spent time and money on something over a long period, and therefore (rightly or wrongly) felt that they owned a part of it. Watching GW change things so much, when they already done so much to break other bonds with games these gamers loved, was too much.

So you get a lot of shouting loud about the failure, lots of point scoring. You also get a lot of people that are frustrated that it's not getting a chance, and those that like it and are fed up.

Personally, I think if they had gone down the route you suggest in the OP, it might have been better. But a lot of things would have been better. The worst thing about this mess is that there is a really playable 'friendly' game out there, with pretty models. But it's lost in a sea of people that are rightly annoyed that the game they loved isn't progressing.

Any then you have those that never played WHFB, but are hurt that GW have seemingly messed up their game of choice. So it's an easy target.

People can read rules and make decisions without actually playing the game. For example, if you want a tactical mediaeval/fantasy game with a balance system, formations, and command and control, you know from reading AoS that the rules don't have them, so there's not much point playing it. There are plenty of alternatives, which you can read and see do have these rule systems included.

Life is short. Why bother to spend time playing AoS if you already know it doesn't support the things you are looking for in a game.

I agree, at times the derision directed at AoS got rather extreme. "It isn't a game" was the sort of thing you might read.

There are alternatives to WHFB too, of course.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Thebiggesthat wrote:
I do think that there is a great deal of people that made their mind up that they wouldn't like something without even thinking of giving it a chance with AoS.

I'd be wary of using Dakka as any barometer though. You have people that spent time and money on something over a long period, and therefore (rightly or wrongly) felt that they owned a part of it. Watching GW change things so much, when they already done so much to break other bonds with games these gamers loved, was too much.

So you get a lot of shouting loud about the failure, lots of point scoring. You also get a lot of people that are frustrated that it's not getting a chance, and those that like it and are fed up.

Personally, I think if they had gone down the route you suggest in the OP, it might have been better. But a lot of things would have been better. The worst thing about this mess is that there is a really playable 'friendly' game out there, with pretty models. But it's lost in a sea of people that are rightly annoyed that the game they loved isn't progressing.

Any then you have those that never played WHFB, but are hurt that GW have seemingly messed up their game of choice. So it's an easy target.

People can read rules and make decisions without actually playing the game. For example, if you want a tactical mediaeval/fantasy game with a balance system, formations, and command and control, you know from reading AoS that the rules don't have them, so there's not much point playing it. There are plenty of alternatives, which you can read and see do have these rule systems included.

Life is short. Why bother to spend time playing AoS if you already know it doesn't support the things you are looking for in a game.

I agree, at times the derision directed at AoS got rather extreme. "It isn't a game" was the sort of thing you might read.

There are alternatives to WHFB too, of course.

Which is why there are folks touting KoW.

The problem with AoS replacing WHFB is that it bears little structural similarity to the game that it is trying to replace.

In much the same way that 4e D&D did not resemble the previous editions of the game that it was trying (and failing) to replace.

And WotC, like GW, in that instance either did not perform or did not accept market research.

What market research would have shown is an unknown quantity, as market research done after the fact is already dealing with a fractured market.

At this point, market research may help in getting out of the predicament, but it cannot prevent the predicament from happening.

Despite Kirby's claim - market research is important in a niche market - as a niche market reacts faster than a larger, mainstream market.

The Auld Grump

-

For example, if you want a tactical mediaeval/fantasy game with a balance system, formations, and command and control, you know from reading AoS that the rules don't have them, so there's not much point playing it.

Very vague and hence meaningless list of things, but it has all of those IMO. Of course those who start angry will not look to see what systems are there, but just go with their bias.

What balance mechanism do you mean? From a tourney point of view all players are picking from the same single 'list' hence it is perfectly balanced given any parameter to limit game size as set by a TO. It has a sudden death system for very basic play, and scenarios that throw in different VC. It has balance systems, maybe not what you would like, but it has them. So far in my experience and from what I've read of others playing it works generally better than the old WFB for close balanced games. Of course there is always TFG, but all systems meet him.

Formations? It has units with coherency rules, and it has larger battalion formations with special rules. It has formations. You can put them in rectangle blocks or triangles etc. Do you really mean it isn't a block game with the extra layer of complicated block rules?

Command and control. No idea what you mean here. It has standard bearers, it has musicians, it has Bravery and running away, coherency, it has a general and command abilities. It has everything I can think that something like WFB or KOW had/has that might fall under C&C. Or are you meaning 'realistic' C&C rules, with loss of control over your units and delays for orders being carried out etc which are fairly rare in mini wargames?

-It doesn't have balance (seriously, no, self-policing doesn't count, nor do house rules or tournament house rules)
-It does have formations, IDK what that's about unless it's unit blocks (i.e. unit formation meaning something). The comment about being able to put them in w/e shape you want is ridiculous, though, sorry: a lack of structure allowing you to do whatever you want isn't structure.
-As far as I can tell, it doesn't have command/control like any modern game where commanders are more than big guys, such as Infinity, Malifaux, WM/H, etc., and there are combos that often involve some form of leadership roles.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Despite Kirby's claim - market research is important in a niche market - as a niche market reacts faster than a larger, mainstream market.

The Auld Grump

It really depends on what you define as your niche, and whether/how much you're interested in expanding it. If you define your niche as "the guy who will only buy things I make, and doesn't care and will never consider any other product", market research matters a lot less. There are pretty good examples of good execution of this -- look at Apple and iPhones. It takes a tidal wave of complaints before they'll change anything at all. It too has a shrinking market share and what "everyone" decries as unreasonably high and uncompetitive prices, but the profits are so good under its model that Apple doesn't care. With the exception of Samsung, almost all the competitors who are "making what people want" (read: cheap Android phones) are scraping by with tiny profits.

I don't think GW is *quite* there in terms of inflexibility, but they aren't far off. Basically, they produce what they want to produce, because they feel there's a profitable enough segment that wants close to or exactly what they make. It's not that they don't want more customers; it's just that they're not going to work for them -- the ones that like GW's stuff will buy their stuff, and they're okay with the people who want something else going somewhere else.

That kind of arrogance really puts off some people, in the same way that Apple's perceived arrogance puts off a lot of potential customers. For me -- I frankly care very little about a company's arrogance (perceived or actual). I care a lot more about the product -- if it's a good fit for me, I'll give them my money, and if it's not a good fit, I'll go somewhere else. Whether they can't figure out what I want, or just don't want to produce it, really makes no difference to me; they won't get my money either way.

In what world is the iPhone, a product that has sold hundreds of millions of units and has TV ads all over the world, a niche product? Their market share is only small because the whole market is made up of billions of phones worldwide. These days they even have products at varying price points (everything but the lowest segments). If you define their niche as a premium product then they have a niche that encompasses the everything but the bargain bin price points, worldwide, and all ages. Which is in no way comparable to GW's situation. Would anybody call BMW a niche product because they don't sell Toyota/VW numbers? They might have been a niche when they were Apple Computers and aimed at education and art/design/music creators but now they are clearly aiming at the mass market (they even partnered with IBM for the corporate market) and the products aimed at these niches tends to be the ones they upgrade quite irregularly these days.

Wargaming doesn't have that reach and is actually a niche even compared to other toys and games, to some degree even in the building plastic kits of some sort niche. GW is a subset of that because they kinda try to isolate/separate themselves and their customers from the rest. They really, really want a captive audience. They might even think they have one but the reaction to AOS has shown that they are not irreplaceable and also not in a position where they know exactly what their customers want. Compare that reaction (all over the place, from negative to positive) to how Apple's yearly iPhone upgrade is received (people who already like the product tend to like the new iteration too). GW has managed to create a sizable fan-base that tends to love big chunks of their output (otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it) but really doesn't like the company and how it handles the product. In Apple's case the hate comes from outside (focused on everything from aesthetics, features, philosophy, to the actual software) while the fans just grumble a bit when things are not to their satisfaction. And on top of that Apple actually advertises their new products worldwide while GW did not really anything to advertise their brand new game.

If GW really had a captive segment that really wants to buy what they offer then their sales wouldn't fluctuate that much (especially with the corresponding price increases) and they wouldn't need to introduce a brand new game because the old one wouldn't be failing without them knowing why.

 Talys wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Despite Kirby's claim - market research is important in a niche market - as a niche market reacts faster than a larger, mainstream market.

The Auld Grump

It really depends on what you define as your niche,

No. It doesn't.

What you define as your niche may define the scale and scope of your research, that's it.

The rest of your post is largely absurd.

 Azreal13 wrote:
No. It doesn't.

What you define as your niche may define the scale and scope of your research, that's it.

The rest of your post is largely absurd.

Sure it does. If I my niche is wooden pineapples painted pink, I don't need to do any market research, so long as that niche is reaches my profitability expectations. It doesn't matter that with my equipment, I could make furniture and wooden ducks that people want; it doesn't even matter if the world would buy green wooden pineapples. the specific niche I'm serving is pink wooden pineapples, and the best pink wooden pineapples that can be made. Might sound absurd, but if enough people want to buy pink wooden pineapples, what do I care?

In much the same way, GW is serving one specific niche: people who like the GW aesthetic, who don't mind paying a relatively high price, who highly value the miniatures/modelling aspect of the hobby, who don't have space issues, who prefer to play with like-minded groups, who like big models, and who like to game the way GW likes to write its games. If they have no desire to expand that niche, they don't have to do any market research at all. I understand that it infuriates a lot of people that GW doesn't seem to care about their aspect of the hobby or the way they want to game -- or if GW does, it won't do anything about it. But that's their prerogative.

At the very worst, the niche will not support their business, and then they will have to re-evaluate the niche the wish to serve; at the moment this clearly isn't the case, because even while spending half a reporting period releasing stuff that the Internet claims nobody wants, they've still made millions of dollars. At the best, they'll be lucky, and there will be a lot of people who like things the way they imagine it.

But this is basically what GW has always done, for like, 30 years. They make a product, without consulting the outside world, and people come and buy it because they want it. Maybe one day that model won't work; but that day isn't today. Maybe that model would be more profitable if they did things differently -- and whether that matters or not is up to GW management.

To take my previous parallel, for the longest time Apple didn't make smartphones with larger screens or tablets with smaller screens because Steve Jobs didn't think these were niches that were worthy of their attention. So, even though tablets might be a niche, 10" tablets and 7" tablets serve different niches, and Jobs simply chose to ignore the latter (even though, in hindsight, obviously, the iPad mini was a smashing success). No different than GW choosing to not to pursue the tournament/pickup wargaming niches.

You can say "it's stupid that GW doesn't want to pursue the tournament/pickup niches", but the truth is, if they don't want to pursue that business, researching the market really is pointless.

There isn't a single commercial enterprise that wouldn't be in some way better if it possessed more, pertinent, information about its customers and potential customers.

 oni wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 oni wrote:
Pretty much the reaction I anticipated... A warranted one no doubt. I have come to find that my views and opinions on AoS tend to contradict most of those here on Dakka - that's OK, it is what it is.

I base my point of view on the few local communities I can directly observe and while my scope is limited and may differ from the rest of you, it holds true (in my opinion) for the player bases I can directly observe.

Your logic is flawed, that's why so many people contradict your opinion.

There is not now, nor ever will there be, a responsibility on the consumer to be excited for a product. That lies firmly and permanently at the feet of the maker of that product.

That so many people were unwilling to play AOS as it stood simply demonstrates that GW had made a product nobody wanted*, that so many people were willing to try and make it work demonstrates the enormous enthusiasm for GW products that still exists, despite GW's repeated attempts to squander it.

What you've observed has no impact on this, it doesn't even matter if people have modified or refused to play AOS for completely spurious reasons, or even completely invalid ones, the fact remains that it was GW who were responsible for managing that reaction, and GW who have apparently ultimately failed at it. What you have observed is that failure in action.



*and before someone pulls me up on "nobody" I'll ask them to provide a pre-launch example of someone calling for GW to scrap all the Fantasy fluff and abandon all pretence at structure or balance to back it up.

My logic is not flawed. My point of view merely comes from a different perspective - a perspective that is not your own and one which you seem to not understand at the moment (but that's OK, I did not convey it very clearly) and because of this you consider my logic to be flawed. Sadly I do not have time at the moment to delve deeper into this nor do I care to get into a pissing match.

Exalted!
Why bother moving goalposts when you can just remove them altogether! Classic!

 Talys wrote:
Sure it does. If I my niche is wooden pineapples painted pink, I don't need to do any market research, so long as that niche is reaches my profitability expectations. It doesn't matter that with my equipment, I could make furniture and wooden ducks that people want; it doesn't even matter if the world would buy green wooden pineapples. the specific niche I'm serving is pink wooden pineapples, and the best pink wooden pineapples that can be made. Might sound absurd, but if enough people want to buy pink wooden pineapples, what do I care?

And what if the tropical themed, pink, hotel up the road that serves hundreds of guests a day wished to renovate their rooms and could easily be talked into putting a pink wooden pineapple in each and every one of their 200 room?

You're loosing money by not knowing they are interested in that.

My history with aos

New ed excitement, I was looking forward to seeing what gw did with the game I loved. I eagerly bought the Boxset, round bases...ok, I don't really mind, I read the rules, read them again, thought to myself "must just be the starter rules, a proper set will be coming"

So I waited, and waited, then the pdf of the army books went up, I read the dwarfs.... Ok, maybe the models will be cool?

Guess what recently dropped, the awful dwarf models.

So to say I gave it a fair chance... Is fair, it's not the game I want, so I tried kings of war, still not what I wanted, now I'm trying 9th age, and it needs a bit of work, but I'm loving it so far.

 Talys wrote:


In much the same way, GW is serving one specific niche: people who like the GW aesthetic, who don't mind paying a relatively high price, who highly value the miniatures/modelling aspect of the hobby, who don't have space issues, who prefer to play with like-minded groups, who like big models, and who like to game the way GW likes to write its games.

That's a really stupid way to run a business, narrow down the customer base to "those that will buy our stuff no matter what and screw everyone else." That guarantees a shrinking customer base and will stagnate and die. You have to grow and they seem to be doing their hardest to do the opposite of that.