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.

As title.
From issue 16, Warhammer Visions is changing format.
It says it will be twice the size. It's not clear from the note that came with the latest issue, if this is twice the size (length/width) or twice the size in number of pages.
I'm going to assume they're going back to an old WD size format.

Apologies if this is already known or posted in the wrong forum.





Added from reds8n:




Funny how they've gone to the trouble of making a mock up front cover of issue 10 in the new size. Why not just show us the cover of the next issue?

I do hope for a bigger format, more in line with the White Dwarf, I've always found it an odd choice to run a pretty picture mag in small format.

Double the price?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Double the price?

"the price remains the same"

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Double the price?

"the price remains the same"

That's the disappointing bit, really.

Translation: we blew it, how do we fix this mess?

 Scrub wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Double the price?

"the price remains the same"

That's the disappointing bit, really.

I think I'm one of the few people who still buy it, but that's only due to the fact I get it at the old White Dwarf subscription price.

I wouldn't pay the actual cover price.

I just find it a fun thing to flick through. I'm aware there are lots of photos on the web but after a full day in front of a screen, its nice to not stare at one in all of my free time.

If they try to push a new price on me or mess with the format too much, I'm out.

I buy it every now and then, when I feel like throwing away money and there's an army I like in it.

Q:

 Pete Melvin wrote:
Translation: we blew it, how do we fix this mess?

A: Don't double the page count while cutting the content level and utility to almost nothing like you did when you split WD from Visions.

The small A5 format is very price inefficient - it is much cheaper to double the page size (assuming a reduction in the number of pages).

It was always dumb as hell to have the "pretty pictures" magazine in tiny format, you're showing off nice pics for goodness sake, make em big ! Plus the small format gets totally lost on a magazine shelf behind other normal sized magazines.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Double the price?

"the price remains the same"

But you didn't read the microscopic letters:

"the price per page remains the same, yet we've decided to double the pages".

The cynic in me would also point out that the quote of the price remaining the same is in a message apparently to a subscriber meaning that they're not increasing the price for that group... not necessarily for those few who buy it off the rack.

Cool beans! I had already planned to get a sub. Neat to know they might be adding to it without touching the price.

Its still crap but now you get double the amount.......

Why would i want more of what caused me to stop buying it in the first place

I think I'm one of the few that didn't cancel their subscription. It's nowhere near as good as the old wd but I do like some of the sections, plus the subscription price is good.

I hope they improve the content as well as the format. Some of the sections are great (blanchitsu, parade ground), but some I could do without. The releases section is ridiculously long.

Confirmed to be a "regular magazine size format" rather than a5

It's already a brick... it would be unreadable with double the pages. So yeah, double the page size seems more likely.

I can't see this saving it, though.

I'm rarely interested in White Dwarf, but it isn't' carried by many shops anymore over here, having been totally replaced by Visions, which I will never buy.

it is a beautiful layout on the iPad, using the iBooks format...
much better than the WD, which uses a standard PDF format, and looks horrible on the iPad...

i'm a big fan of Blanchitsu, and of seeing the Golden Demon entries...
so, personally, i prefer Visions to WD these days...
it's always nice to have a monthly injection of pretty GW pics to inspire me in Mexico, where mini painting only exists in one or two cities, far from the beach...

cheers
jah

You know what might help the thing? Checking what people are actually paying for it. I cannot be the only person who's paying far less than they should.

I subscribed to a WD offer about seven years ago, by direct debit. I'm still getting Visions at roughly £2.50 an issue. At that rate I never bothered cancelling. I take a cursory flick through, show the pet chemist, and just cut the painting guides out of the back.

I have noticed that occasionally the folks behind writing it are paying less attention to it than I am. One of my past issues has several pages that just say:
#########################
#########################
#########################
#########################
in multiple languages.

I do wonder if it's going well or not for them, I haven't seen one in a while as no one I know finds any value in it. Even our resident fanboy stopped buying forever ago.
So I don't realy see this change getting more sales where I am. So would still be waiting for a better magazine, as I still love having them and reading though others.

I just realised this is still on my "to chop & recycle" pile by the door.

Either someone is excitedly screaming on every page, or this wasn't checked terribly well.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:
I just realised this is still on my "to chop & recycle" pile by the door.

Either someone is excitedly screaming on every page, or this wasn't checked terribly well.

Epic fail is really the only way to describe that.

I love Visions.
Well worth the price.

Just hoping that the new format will also bring slight changes in content.
The weakest part of Visions of today is 1/3 being numerous photos of the newest release(s).

I would prefer more Blanchitsu, Golden Demon, readers miniatures, conversions, etc.

Apple fox wrote:
I do wonder if it's going well or not for them, I haven't seen one in a while as no one I know finds any value in it. Even our resident fanboy stopped buying forever ago.
So I don't realy see this change getting more sales where I am. So would still be waiting for a better magazine, as I still love having them and reading though others.

Well, in the latest half-year report, falling magazine sales were listed as one of the reasons behind declining revenues, so I'd imagine it's not going swimmingly.

It's a testament to how utterly gak WD has become over the past years, that people now actually prefer a magazine with just pictures in it.

I feel sorry for younger games these days that don't realise what they have missed, and what an active and important part of the wargaming hobby GW's publications used to be. Even years later those WD mags are still a great read and there are a number of them that I will continue to keep and treasure.

 Malika2 wrote:

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Double the price?

"the price remains the same"

But you didn't read the microscopic letters:

"the price per page remains the same, yet we've decided to double the pages".

Nope. It's the same content per issue but with slightly bigger photos. Enjoy!

 Buttery Commissar wrote:


I have noticed that occasionally the folks behind writing it are paying less attention to it than I am. One of my past issues has several pages that just say:
#########################
#########################
#########################
#########################
in multiple languages.

Holy cow! They apparently are funding the change by firing all the copy editors. That is spectacularly embarrassing. It's one thing to miss a tiny box of text somewhere on one page (though still bad) but to miss several whole pages?

Eight.

But I'll be square with you, having checked the cover, it's issue #3 from April 2014, so they may have learned from it by now.
I don't usually hang on to year-old recycling, I am trying to remember why I kept this particular copy.

It's also home to this fantastic example of why they shouldn't be allowed near A5 format.