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.

http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/mechwarrior-tactics-is-free-to-play-turn-based-and-go-ahead-and-take-our-mo

When is GW going to catch up with the rest of the world and offer their games online. A paid monthly subscription say 10 dollars per month with access to all armies, regular updates and changes, and even tournaments with well transitioned versions of warhammer and 40k would make more for them than all the models they sell a year.

Would it draw away some of their model retail towards it, im sure it would. But it would bring in far more that would never spend a dime with GW otherwise. Putting aside that it might ruin tabletop, it dosent make sense from a buisness standpoint for GW not to do something similar, and they have proven time and again that the bottom line wins out over everything else.

Ugh.

I'm not saying no, but HELL no.

There's a reason I play GW and other tabletop games, it is to GET AWAY from computers and screens, kthx.

curran12 wrote:Ugh.

I'm not saying no, but HELL no.

There's a reason I play GW and other tabletop games, it is to GET AWAY from computers and screens, kthx.

Whilst this is true, you cannot deny GW should embrace the internet and not see it as some "passing fad".

I don't even care about graphics or playing online, but something like D&DInsider, with access to all the rulebooks, codexes, etc... would be a dream. Instant FAQs, updates, etc...

At $5-$10/month, I'd personally end up spending more than I do on rulebooks on average in a year, anyway. Plus official android/iphone apps (another $5-10 or so) would certainly find some use.

Grimtuff wrote:

Whilst this is true, you cannot deny GW should embrace the internet and not see it as some "passing fad".

By turning the games I love into even more of an isolated experience since I'd literally be playing internet lists on the internet if I want to play? Yeah, if that is "embracing the internet" you can count that as a pass for me.

I'll also pass on it if "embracing the internet" means appeasement to the loudest and most vile of the internet subgroups.

IS that what you mean?

Wait they crossed Mechwarrior, with a online playing platform, and the way they make money is making you buy the equivilent of CCG packs to get upgrades, gear and the like, so its virtually collectable.

Ah hell, run wallet.. get the hell out of here!


On a more serious note, I don't see this replacing anything, wargamming isn't going to up and disappear because of this, but it is a damn fine feature for fans of the series and probably should be just considered a fun video game, rather than a replacement or new direction for wargaming in general.

Orock wrote:

Would it draw away some of their model retail towards it, im sure it would. But it would bring in far more that would never spend a dime with GW otherwise. Putting aside that it might ruin tabletop, it dosent make sense from a buisness standpoint for GW not to do something similar, and they have proven time and again that the bottom line wins out over everything else.

And there you have your answer.

Table top wargaming is not for everybody, and those people can play some of the excellent video-games (that I also enjoy) on their various platforms. Leave my hobby alone.

The thing is GW has already done an equivilent of this via Dawn of War, that didn't loose anything, it brought people into the hobby.

I would expect this would do the same. Folks who play video games and wargames aren't in general going to be swayed to stop because they can play something online.
Its much more likely gamers who had never considered wargamming, but had those tendancies due to a love of stategy games would find their way to the GW hobby.

Mechwarrior may well see a rise in sales of their minature products because of this, just a shame that they are so hard to find these days.

The obvious answer is that Dawn of War is a different game with a common setting. What is being proposed is the same game but with the tabletop and minis replaced by a computerized map. I agree with Currant, besides that, GW would lose a ton of money from model sales, think about it, GW is already alienating a lot of customers, if they could find a cheaper way to play they would take it. GW shouldn't offer its customers its own end on a silver platter by giving them that cheaper way to play...

Dawn of War is equivalent to the tabletop game?

I'm sorry, but lolwat?

Orock wrote:http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/mechwarrior-tactics-is-free-to-play-turn-based-and-go-ahead-and-take-our-mo

When is GW going to catch up with the rest of the world and offer their games online. A paid monthly subscription say 10 dollars per month with access to all armies, regular updates and changes, and even tournaments with well transitioned versions of warhammer and 40k would make more for them than all the models they sell a year.

Would it draw away some of their model retail towards it, im sure it would. But it would bring in far more that would never spend a dime with GW otherwise. Putting aside that it might ruin tabletop, it dosent make sense from a buisness standpoint for GW not to do something similar, and they have proven time and again that the bottom line wins out over everything else.

Never! This would take the fun out of it for a ton of people.

GW is smart not to do this. And they have already demonstrated how so with their numerous game titles already.

Can you imagine if GW said "We are going to get rid of tabletop and go into the interwebz!"

And then you get something like WH Fantasy Online? They would sink thier own ship.

Computer tech advances too fast for "GW design" to keep up with. One bad apple and it doens't just spoil the whole batch, it kills the tree and it falls over and kills the cow. If they don't knock out a homerun with every "version" they doom themselves.

Further, as a tabletop player, you are more invested in thier offerings. Personally, I hate the current ed, and finecosts failings disgust me. And yet, I still have two armies in bags sitting around waiting for a better day. Many of my playing group is int eh same boat.

You can't do that with a computer game. If GW was "online" and people didn't like it, it would be much easier to walk away and see what newest offering Blizzard has or any number of other companies have to offer.

No, GW is smart to keep it tabletop.

Why would GW do this?

They're not a subsidiary of Hasbro. Hasbro has a ton of money to throw around.

curran12 wrote:Dawn of War is equivalent to the tabletop game?

I'm sorry, but lolwat?

This isn't the equivilent of the Mechwarrior game either, unless we are talking about the thankfully short lived clix game?

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:

curran12 wrote:Dawn of War is equivalent to the tabletop game?

I'm sorry, but lolwat?

This isn't the equivilent of the Mechwarrior game either, unless we are talking about the thankfully short lived clix game?

Well, you're the one making the comparison, I was hoping for some clarification on how Dawn of War is the equivalent of the tabletop game.

So GW should switch from the model making/hobby industry where they are a big fish in a small pond to the internet based video game industry with more expreinced and succesful competators? That makes sense....oh wait.

GW is smart that there best use of technology is to liscince their story/IP for video games. This introduces new players to their fluff but doesn't compete with their actual fixed cost industry (model making and selling).

One thing I think they could do better would be support programs. Like a GW Army builder program (that lets you purchase codexs through it though not the rule book). As GW always insists they are a model company so they should not care about the decrease in book sales because they would see as they will still get a good portion of that money (charge $100 for the program, make people pay for updated codexes ect), and this would help them sell more models as it would encourage people to try new and different armies.

I'm not totally sure this type of game would be a benefit to GW really. As it stands now I'm holding off on purchasing a new array of Battletech manuals because I'd rather give the online game a go before trying to teach my friends the arcane art of 80's mech combat. Since the ownership of the BTech IP is split, the makers of the online game don't really suffer when someone decides not to purchase the tabletop game in lieu of playing the online game.

Since the GW IP isn't split as such, it would likely be detrimental for GW to produce a tabletop like experience online. That being said, I wouldn't spend a dollar to play GW's tabletop offering but I'd be in for the online version, though I suspect that I'd be a vast minority.

curran12 wrote:

Well, you're the one making the comparison, I was hoping for some clarification on how Dawn of War is the equivalent of the tabletop game.

What I meant was, Dawn of War is a good example of the 40K universe. It was complex enough that if you are that inclined you could play it instead of 40K. Its not a perfect copy of 40K, you can't set yourself up point fo point.

A fair few are saying this would kill GW if they had a game online, but I was pointed out they already have, and it drew folks into the hobby not pushed them away.

This Mechwarrior game is pretty much the same thing, it doesn't look like you can built point of point armies, it is more about getting some mechs, upgrading them as you would in any other videogame and blowing stuff up. Being turn based doesn't equal exact copy, its more like Panzer or allied General, two games I loved.

So Its not really a wargame in the sense of either 40K or Mechwarrior, so my posts are based from the point of view why are folks bricking it about the possabiliy of GW being ruined by a smiliar release, when a video game of 40K exists already?

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:

What I meant was, Dawn of War is a good example of the 40K universe. It was complex enough that if you are that inclined you could play it instead of 40K. Its not a perfect copy of 40K, you can't set yourself up point fo point.

A fair few are saying this would kill GW if they had a game online, but I was pointed out they already have, and it drew folks into the hobby not pushed them away.

This Mechwarrior game is pretty much the same thing, it doesn't look like you can built point of point armies, it is more about getting some mechs, upgrading them as you would in any other videogame and blowing stuff up. Being turn based doesn't equal exact copy, its more like Panzer or allied General, two games I loved.

So Its not really a wargame in the sense of either 40K or Mechwarrior, so my posts are based from the point of view why are folks bricking it about the possabiliy of GW being ruined by a smiliar release, when a video game of 40K exists already?

The issue I believe folks saying that are having, and certainly myself, is that it is not just a video game, it is a straight up replacement of the hobby in a digital/online format. That's the issue I am seeing and strongly opposed to. I'm perfectly okay with them trying out video games, but I do not want the physical tabletop to be superseded by a digital one, which is how I see something like this leading to.

Now don't mistake me, I'm all for good online support. I'd love an official GW armybuilder thing (though if I'm not mistaken, isn't ArmyBuilder kinda tangled up with GW anyway? I know at least at one point, you could by ArmyBuilter at GW stores) or other online components to help facilitate the games I play on a tabletop. But I do not want my tabletop experience replaced by an online one.

Neither would I, but didn't mechwarrior just (well last year) get an anniversary editon. Its still out there.

I think its trown off a little because it is Mechwarrior. As much as a great game it is, its not really selling in the same degrees that it once did.

If this was say Warmachine, or Infinity, it would be a much more interesting example of what t could do for the industry.

However regardless of whatever this is, or does, online will never replace the hobby aspects of what makes Warhammer and other wargames great. Which is modelling, painting and playing on a 3-d board.

What I would see this being very popular for, would be so folks could test new battle strategies, and or for those poor souls that on occasion find themselves adrfit with no players near to them at all.

However even with Vassal, I still saw plenty of folks saying that although that was their only avenue to play, they still had models they where collecting.

I honestly hand on heart think, this kind of format game, which is almost Mechwarrior, but still not the same as playing it on a tabletop, (if sheets start flying up on screen and you check off boxes, then roll for criticals and the like, I'll accept this is a copy) would not be as damaging as people think.

Its just going to be a great videogame mostly.

Kanluwen wrote:Why would GW do this?

They're not a subsidiary of Hasbro. Hasbro has a ton of money to throw around.

For what seems like the first time ever I agree with Kanluwen.

Abandoning table top gaming for video games would be the most idiotic thing GW has ever done; and, I think Kan will agree with me on this, they have done some pretty stupid things. There is a reason THQ and Relic make the GW video games and not GW themselves. They aren't a video game company, they are a modelling/gaming/storytelling company.

Terrible idea. The only reason anyone plays 40k is because of the models. Both 40k and especially Fantasy are not good enough games (or balanced enough) to stand up as a viable video game. There is an expectation of finely-tuned balance and fairness which would be highly visible in an online-only version of the game.

Besides... I do not want to play a video game, I like painting models. I see no valid reason to do anything different. They already made 40k themed games for people who want to play 40k via a video game.

Aye I think whats thrown off here is the OP has misunderstood what this game is, and somehow drawn the bizarre conclusion that GW should go fully online.

I missed that, (should really double check the OP post a couple of times) was actually arguing that this is not going to effect fans who enjoy tabletop Battletech, as much as a GW videogame in this style wouldn't bother most of us either, and most would use it as a tool or fun distraction.

I should clarify I in no way agree ith the OP, and think I realised why folks where not seeing what I was talking about.
As it was fairly assumed I was backing the OP, when I am just pointing out that this kind of game released as a game alongside Warhammer 40K wouldn't be a bad thing.

I love DoW 1.

I wouldn't play 40k on a computer, though. I prefer the models and the interaction.

However, this Mechwarrior game sounds bitchin'! If only I had time for it... Ah, well.

nkelsch wrote:Terrible idea. The only reason anyone plays 40k is because of the models. Both 40k and especially Fantasy are not good enough games (or balanced enough) to stand up as a viable video game. There is an expectation of finely-tuned balance and fairness which would be highly visible in an online-only version of the game.

This.

Holy hell, 40k would be getting flamed and ripped to pieces and considered to be unplayable garbage if it was ported directly to PC.

If you think the whining about Mat Ward on here is bad, you haven't seen anything yet - hardcore online gamers are even harsher and highly critical of even very minor game design flaws or imbalances between units.

I work as a PC game developer, I have direct experience of this. Also, the expectation is that players are listened to, and fixes occur within days. GW would get eaten alive with it's current "we'll fix it next decade when we release a new codex" policy.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Aye I think what’s thrown off here is the OP has misunderstood what this game is, and somehow drawn the bizarre conclusion that GW should go fully online.

I have to disagree with this statement as I think this is more of a case of people in this thread making classic “internetz over assumptions”.

I interpret the OP as a suggestion towards GW making better use of the internet with their games with additional subscription based online content. There’s nothing in the OP post that suggests the online version would be a 100% permanent replacement.

D&D 4E saw the release of some pretty cool software that allowed the game to be played online. Did it supersede model and mini sales? No as people still bought their bodyweight in D&D books and minis. Did games like DoW, Space Marine and Kill Team supersede 40k sales? No as people still buy their bodyweight in 40k stuff.

Seriously people, we can’t make assumptions like this as there isn’t any data to base it on and nor should we take random “internetz theories” as hard facts.

Orock wrote:http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/mechwarrior-tactics-is-free-to-play-turn-based-and-go-ahead-and-take-our-mo

When is GW going to catch up with the rest of the world and offer their games online. A paid monthly subscription say 10 dollars per month with access to all armies, regular updates and changes, and even tournaments with well transitioned versions of warhammer and 40k would make more for them than all the models they sell a year.

Would it draw away some of their model retail towards it, im sure it would. But it would bring in far more that would never spend a dime with GW otherwise. Putting aside that it might ruin tabletop, it dosent make sense from a buisness standpoint for GW not to do something similar, and they have proven time and again that the bottom line wins out over everything else.

Hahahahahaha is this a serious post?

You can't actually believe that this would be good business sense for GW?

Have you ever taken an economics class? Or a math class? Or read the newspaper?

I think It would make great business sense for GW to embrace the internet but not like the OP suggests, I dont think online versions of any of the main current rules systems would be a good idea.
I enjoy Bloodbowl online and i think games like Space hulk, old school talisman and the dreaded dread fleet (actually a decent game imo) and could be done over the net as well as rules updates and niche army lists and maybe other stuff for tabletop.
All in all i am not too bothered about getting more GW games on the net but i do think it could be a good outlet for them to cash in, in other ways.

Game costs what, 30 pound or so nowdays? 30-40 and 50 on the topend / over priced (SWTOR)

You can't even get 2 tactical squads for that, why would they release a cheaper alternative when everyone's still playing the tabletop?.

I can't believe the douchewadery of a lot of people posting here sometimes.

The OP had an idea and wanted to discuss it. Instead he gets his intelligence insulted, his common sense debased.. and.. oh wait.. it's the internet...people like ph34r exist out here, armed with numbers representing letters and intentional mispellings all rolled into one nice leet speak burrito.

I tend to agree with the OP. I don't see GW losing money by releasing a internet version of the game that adheres to the tabletop feel. Furthermore, I suspect a lot of the people in here crying doom and gloom on the subject probably have Vassal accounts.

Seriously, do you think that GW would be re-releasing Blood Bowl starters if they hadn't dropped two video-games introducing a new platform to the game? Bloodbowl PC brought me to a gamestore to find out about the miniatures game (after some google-fu.) THAT brought me to 40k and Fantasy, and that ended in the purchase of 4 complete armies.

I would still buy models, still paint them, still play them. The subscription revenue would help them out a lot IMO.