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.

 odinsgrandson wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Microsoft just released its 2016Q2 quarterlies, and I had to chuckle a little as I noticed that it's pretty much all expressed in Constant Currency -- not just the top line numbers, but pretty much every comparative with previous periods.

Also, Microsoft returned $6.5 billion to investors in the form of repurchases and dividends, on profits of $5.0 billion

Yes, yes, there are about 100 billion reasons that they're not good companies to compare with each other (around the difference in their annual revenues). But it just goes to show that constant currency and returning more to investors than earnings is not just something crazy that GW does.

If anyone's interested in MSFT, an easy summary is here -- all in all a pretty good quarter for them.

http://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-posts-q2-fy2016-earnings-50-billion-net-income-on-238-billion-revenue

Ok- interesting.

I honestly can see how it could work well for them- but ultimately I can't see how this could possibly a maintainable strategy. I mean, Microsoft spent $1.5 billion that they didn't make, right?

If they paid out less than they made last year, I could see how this would make loads of sense. I cannot see how this could possibly be a sustainable long term strategy.

Is there a way that it can be a strong long-term strategy?

Re-establishing the brand - Windows 8 and the initial rollout of the XBox One did a lot of damage to their two central brands.

In particular, the release of Windows 10 as a free update means that less revenue came in for the new OS, but it has taken hold in the new computer market much better than the not-free Windows 8. (And is a better OS as well - Windows 8 was a mistake from base concept to release.)

It is fair to view the current loss of revenue as trying to make up for those two earlier mistakes.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* It is worth mentioning that many of the problems with Windows 8 came down to Microsoft disregarding market research, while GW never performs market research - there is a reason why you both need to perform research, and listen to what it tells you.

It'a amazing how often Microsoft puts out disastrously gakky operating systems, considering they have been leaders in that marketplace since the early 1980s. Vista was also basically a total failure, with many corporate customers skipping it entirely..

But I digress...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It'a amazing how often Microsoft puts out disastrously gakky operating systems, considering they have been leaders in that marketplace since the early 1980s. Vista was also basically a total failure, with many corporate customers skipping it entirely..

But I digress...

And both times they disregarded market research telling them that it was a bad direction to take their product.

Market research only works if you actually listen to it.

WotC didn't listen, and produced 4e D&D.

Microsoft didn't listen, and produced Windows 8 (and Vista).

GW didn't bother... but that did not prevent them from releasing Age of Sigmar.

It is worth mentioning that New Coke was more a matter of misdirected market research than not listening to the results.

I actually have hopes that Rountree will begin working on market research - so far, the man is proving not to be the sock puppet that i expected.... hopefully he does not get fired before he can turn things around.

The Auld Grump - if it sounds like I think that Kirby is the prime cause of GW's current woes... mmmaaayyybeee.....

Microsoft is a relative poster child compared to GW when it comes to maintaining multiple revenue streams, which is why MS can gak out something utterly horrendous as a flagship product and if not continue to prosper, at least take the hit.

GW, at least up until very recently, had its eggs so precariously balanced in one tiny basket that it's no wonder that a single misstep (6th specifically, although there's cumulative factors at play too) has had repercussions it's taking them years to correct.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Microsoft is a relative poster child compared to GW when it comes to maintaining multiple revenue streams, which is why MS can gak out something utterly horrendous as a flagship product and if not continue to prosper, at least take the hit.

GW, at least up until very recently, had its eggs so precariously balanced in one tiny basket that it's no wonder that a single misstep (6th specifically, although there's cumulative factors at play too) has had repercussions it's taking them years to correct.

Well, yeah... but GW models itself after Apple, not Microsoft, Porsche, not Ford....

Strange... my fingers tried to strangle me while I was typing that....

The Auld Grump - these days GW would do well with a Sinclair or a Yugo.....

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

*EDIT* It is worth mentioning that many of the problems with Windows 8 came down to Microsoft disregarding market research, while GW never performs market research - there is a reason why you both need to perform research, and listen to what it tells you.

I would strongly disagree with W8 disregarding market research. In fact, it's entirely the product of what Microsoft thought the market wanted, based on actual, real-world telemetry data (market research) from hundreds of millions of PCs -- all the people who just agreed in W7 to allow Microsoft to anonymously collect usage information to help them improve the OS. For example, getting rid of the start button? It's because it's hardly ever clicked. Telemetry indicated that most people put their shortcuts on the task bar or desktop. Hence tiles. Telemetry told them where people clicked the most, clicked the least, what they used, didn't use, etc.

Then, during its beta, there wasn't as strong an outcry with the start button going away, because it was easy to get back. All the people who used the beta (not your average user) just went to the registry, changed one entry, and old start+desktop was there.

To put that into a gaming parallel, imagine if GW beta'd Sigmar in a small group, and didn't have points in the game, but everyone just used WHFB points, and figured, well, it's only a beta.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Microsoft is a relative poster child compared to GW when it comes to maintaining multiple revenue streams, which is why MS can gak out something utterly horrendous as a flagship product and if not continue to prosper, at least take the hit.

GW, at least up until very recently, had its eggs so precariously balanced in one tiny basket that it's no wonder that a single misstep (6th specifically, although there's cumulative factors at play too) has had repercussions it's taking them years to correct.

Where there are parallels is that both Microsoft and GW can screw up their flagship product, and people will still buy that flagship product -- and it will still be highly profitable, much to the dismay of competitors and people who don't like those companies.

For example, Windows 8 was widely panned, but it still made way more money than any non-Microsoft operating system ever written.

Warhammer 40k 6e was widely panned, but during that period, GW still made way more money on 40k than any other miniature wargaming company ever did in the same number of months 6e was out.

Which is drawing a false equivalency. I wasn't making any comparisons with other war gaming companies, I was making the point that 6th being widely greeted with a resounding meh led to a significant downturn in GW's fortunes and a massive % being wiped off their value, because they'd almost nothing else to fall back on. Microsoft, by contrast, do have other revenue streams, so are insulated from an underperforming Windows release to some degree.

That and the fact that an overwhelming majority of its market are de facto captive, whereas disillusioned 40K gamers can far more easily move on to something else. Which is yet another reason why it's been a bad comparison to draw from the get go.

 Talys wrote:
In fact, it's entirely the product of what Microsoft thought the market wanted

No, it's what MS thought the market needed, not what the market was telling them it wanted.

based on actual, real-world telemetry data (market research) from hundreds of millions of PCs -- all the people who just agreed in W7 to allow Microsoft to anonymously collect usage information to help them improve the OS. For example, getting rid of the start button? It's because it's hardly ever clicked. Telemetry indicated that most people put their shortcuts on the task bar or desktop. Hence tiles. Telemetry told them where people clicked the most, clicked the least, what they used, didn't use, etc.

Isn't the Windows telemetry a new feature? Like, in the past couple of months? I wasn't aware MS had any telemetry in earlier versions of Windows to tell them what to do in W8. Even if they did have such telemetry data, it would have been a stretch to then extrapolate "oh, people don't click on the start menu, that must mean they want an intrusive full screen tiled version of the start menu instead!"

Then, during its beta, there wasn't as strong an outcry with the start button going away, because it was easy to get back.

I wouldn't really say that. There was still a pretty big outcry on many of the tech forums with only a few people adamant that tiles were superior, and MS should have taken heed of the fact heaps of people were using hacks and 3rd party software to get back the start menu.

I see W8 as an exercise in "We're the biggest game in town so if we tell them what they want they'll eventually have to deal with it" which never worked out (just see how many people are still using W7).

This is hugely off topic but as an early user of the surface I really miss how easy windows 8 worked on the touch screen. Windows 10 is awkward and counter intuitive by comparison. It feels like a step backward. And I miss all the swipe commands for IE. Microsoft made 8 in conjunction with the surface and it worked like a charm. It failed in that it wasn't familiar enough to people using the older technology who weren't prepared to give up old habits in the name of progress.

Something something GW not realising people don't want to give up old habits while creating their new product something something to keep it on topic.

 Henry wrote:
This is hugely off topic but as an early user of the surface I really miss how easy windows 8 worked on the touch screen. Windows 10 is awkward and counter intuitive by comparison. It feels like a step backward. And I miss all the swipe commands for IE. Microsoft made 8 in conjunction with the surface and it worked like a charm. It failed in that it wasn't familiar enough to people using the older technology who weren't prepared to give up old habits in the name of progress.

It didn't fail because it wasn't familiar enough, it failed because most people don't have a surface and didn't want an OS specifically designed for a surface.

 Talys wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

*EDIT* It is worth mentioning that many of the problems with Windows 8 came down to Microsoft disregarding market research, while GW never performs market research - there is a reason why you both need to perform research, and listen to what it tells you.

I would strongly disagree with W8 disregarding market research. In fact, it's entirely the product of what Microsoft thought the market wanted, based on actual, real-world telemetry data (market research) from hundreds of millions of PCs -- all the people who just agreed in W7 to allow Microsoft to anonymously collect usage information to help them improve the OS. For example, getting rid of the start button? It's because it's hardly ever clicked. Telemetry indicated that most people put their shortcuts on the task bar or desktop. Hence tiles. Telemetry told them where people clicked the most, clicked the least, what they used, didn't use, etc.

Given that Microsoft publicly admitted that they had disregarded their market research for Windows 8, you can disagree all you want - it is now a matter of public record. *EDIT* Satya Nadella is one of the names to look for. *EDIT 2* Steve Ballmer as well....

In their infinite wisdom they had decided that market research among desktop owners could be disregarded as tablets were the way of the future.

The result was a product that did not so much bridge the gulf between desktop and tablet as fall into it.

Their admission was part of the reason that I was willing to give Windows 10 a try - they didn't try to pretend that they hadn't made a mistake.

The Auld Grump

@Skink - no, telemetry has been around since W7. "Help us improve your customer experience". It's been a part of Microsoft peripheral drivers (like mice) seemingly forever.

@Auld Grump - I'm not saying MS gave people what they wanted. I'm saying, they gave people what they thought people wanted based on their telemetry, the MS form of market research at the time. In hindsight, obviously, this was an unwise decision.

It is a way to see, however, that market research and observation do not necessarily equate to a winning formula. Just because people don't use something doesn't mean they'll be happy if it's not there. For example, our games of 40k often have disproportionate points, because we don't feel that it is possible in a game with force multipliers and magic to represent I its in absolute value terms (because a and b together is not just more powerful than a + b, but more like 10 * (a+b) -- or more). Depending on the circumstance, we just add more or less stuff as appropriate. However, I would not want to see points go. There are actually many things in 40k that I would have thought were a terrible idea if I had been asked, but that I actually really enjoy now that they're out -- like giant robots or huge tanks.

@Henry - I also think the original and 8.1 Surface interface was superior to Windows 10, for example on Surface Pro 3/4, as a tablet device. For example, I miss the browser bar on the bottom and tabs, as well as the charms bar. On the other hand, I like certain things about W10 a lot, like the ease of switching between tablet and desktop mode.

Likewise, I miss many things about 5e 40k. However, overall, I have grown to be very fond of 7.5e, just as I have Windows 10, and I wouldn't want to go back to the game as it was in 2011, given a choice.

 Talys wrote:
@Skink - no, telemetry has been around since W7. "Help us improve your customer experience". It's been a part of Microsoft peripheral drivers (like mice) seemingly forever.

Well maybe that's the problem.... most anyone tech savvy would have said "No" to participating in the customer improvement program so they're only getting data from the people silly enough to respond yes when someone asks them "We would like to collect a bunch of data about you"

But either way, MS was ignoring some very obvious signs when they thought the W8 interface was a good idea. They would have known that pinning items to the start menu and/or opening the start menu and typing the name of the program were common ways of launching applications (alongside pinning to task bar and desktop shortcut) and the beta showed them plenty of people despised the idea of a touch centric interface on a non-touch device.

But still... I'm not entirely sure why we're talking about MS. MS may have ignored or misused market research, but they still had it, and when W8 flopped they actually had a crack at fixing it with W10. That's still a far cry (in the right direction) from what GW have done over the years.

 Talys wrote:
@Skink - no, telemetry has been around since W7. "Help us improve your customer experience". It's been a part of Microsoft peripheral drivers (like mice) seemingly forever.

@Auld Grump - I'm not saying MS gave people what they wanted. I'm saying, they gave people what they thought people wanted based on their telemetry, the MS form of market research at the time. In hindsight, obviously, this was an unwise decision.

Again, going by Microsoft's own, public, statements - no.

They did market research - and the market research showed that people didn't want their desktop computers to be more like tablets. The telemetry was much in line with the active market research.

Then they did it anyway.

And found out that people really didn't want their desktops to be more like tablets.

So, it went further than 'what people wanted based on their telemetry' - Microsoft actually went against what people said they wanted, and against what the market research showed - expecting people to change their minds once they gave it a try.

People gave it a try... and changed back to Windows 7 in record numbers.

It was more of a matter of thinking that they knew more about what their customers wanted than either the market research or the customers themselves did.

And they were wrong.

Reviewers were panning it before it was even publicly released - with the exact same complaints as the early users.

The term to describe the process is not 'telemetry' it is hubris.

They had gotten too wedded to their own vision of the future, and lost track of the fact that at the end of the day, they can only provide a service if people want that service.

Again, it is worth looking at what the heads of Microsoft have said about it - they were quite open as to how the process went awry, and are not looking for excuses, instead pushing through an operating system that is much closer to what the market research had shown the consumers were wanting. (I mean really worth looking - no sarcasm intended - it gives a good idea as to where their head spaces were when they pushed 8 into the nest like a proud cuckoo.)

Mind you, they pushed Windows 10 out years ahead of expectations, and the result has more than a few bugs - but I will take the bugs over the that was Windows 8.

*EDIT*

Back on topic - I would be very interested in seeing if Rountree actually starts doing some market research - and if they do, whether GW will pay any attention to the results.

I think that they are finally twigging to the fact that they are out of touch with their chosen market, and perhaps they are starting to realize that their vision is not an accurate representation of that market.

It is not that the paradigm has changed, it is that they think that the paradigm has changed, when it hasn't.

Most people buy their models to play games, not just to collect the models.

The Auld Grump

Visible market research and some tangible evidence that there's investment in making the games more playable are the two key things we're still waiting on, IMO, there's definitely stuff afoot that's tackling some of the key other issues, ie price and accessibility

 Azreal13 wrote:
Visible market research and some tangible evidence that there's investment in making the games more playable are the two key things we're still waiting on, IMO, there's definitely stuff afoot that's tackling some of the key other issues, ie price and accessibility

I won't be convinced till 'quality gameplay' as opposed to 'more playable' is on the table.

Everybody's going to have their own opinion on what "quality" is. It may be that even if GW do start to work more towards a fair and balanced ruleset it will remain a game I don't want to play anymore, but at least evidence that they're trying to provide a controlled environment for people who want to test their ability to play the game against someone else will be enough for me.

I mean, I have never been able to get excited about PP's games, but I still recognise that they try hard to keep everything in check, and acknowledge that a lot of people enjoy them a lot.

@TheAuldGrump - via CNET:

http://www.cnet.com/news/why-microsoft-murdered-the-start-button-in-windows-8/

Chaitanya Sareen, principal program manager at Microsoft, told U.K. computer publication PC Pro that data indicated a decrease in the use of the Start button. Citing "telemetry" obtained by the Microsoft Customer Experience Improvement Program, Sareen said the company found more users relying on the Windows taskbar for pinning and accessing their favorite software instead of going through the Start menu.

...

"So I'm a desktop user, I pin the browser, Explorer, whatever my apps are," Sareen told PC Pro. "I don't go [to] the Start menu as often."

I attended numerous official Microsoft events (too many to count) where exactly the same thing was told to us. God knows, at least one person would ask at every single event. If you don't believe me, just Google "Why did Microsoft remove the Start button in Windows 8", and your screen will fill with references to CEIP (Consumer Experience Improvement Program, aka Telemetry data). Essentially, "because you told us to!"

Although it's off topic, I maintain that market research can lead to faulty conclusions. Also, that giving people what they seem to want can also lead to a poor or unpopular product.

@Azreal13 - I'm just curious, Az, what wargame do you like these days?

Incidentally, I DO think that GW wants to build a fair and balanced ruleset. The problem is, they have so many factions and they change their definition of "fair and balanced" or even what belongs in the game, before they finish an edition, so it turns into chopped tuna.

If you look at all the 2014 codex releases, they are all pretty balanced with each other. If you look at all the 2015 codex releases (and 2016 SW changes), they are all pretty balanced with each other too. The problem is, they're horribly imbalanced against each other. And then there's all the stuff that predates 2014...

 Azreal13 wrote:
Visible market research and some tangible evidence that there's investment in making the games more playable are the two key things we're still waiting on, IMO,

Whatever emerges from the ashes of Specialist Games would be a good potential indicator, even if the rules are already (mostly) solid and there will be limited studio involvement.

At this stage though GW have done so much damage to the fluff that I'm not sure that I would have much interest in 40k even if the rules were actually professionally designed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:

Incidentally, I DO think that GW wants to build a fair and balanced ruleset.

They no longer do anything other than in house playtesting, and create some obviously over/under powered units; balance is clearly not a top priority for them.

They don't really need to do a great deal of work to the old SG game rules. Maybe some polishing around the edges... Like the community editions :-D

BFG has great potential for sales because the models are so few and far between. Not like mordheim or bloodbowl or necromunda that can potentially draw miniatures from their current ranges.

The problem lies in that, back in the day, they were unopposed in that market. Even games like confrontation paled in comparison to the GW freight train. Today they have massive competition in the "satellite games" market.

Firestorm armada
Firestorm planetfall
Dystopian wars
Dystopian legions
Dropzone Commander
X-wing
Malifaux
Guild ball
Frostgrave
Deadzone
Halo Fleet battles

They've got to go toe to toe with fair competition now...

 Talys wrote:
Incidentally, I DO think that GW wants to build a fair and balanced ruleset.

That might very well be true, but I don't believe they know how to.

That's why I find the dichotomy between FW and GW proper to be so interesting. The way one acts compared to the other is just so vastly different it's a wonder GW proper hasn't sat back and gone "You know what, this stuff FW's putting out is pretty great. Maybe more'a that and fewer Decurions!".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Incidentally, I DO think that GW wants to build a fair and balanced ruleset.

That might very well be true, but I don't believe they know how to.

That's why I find the dichotomy between FW and GW proper to be so interesting. The way one acts compared to the other is just so vastly different it's a wonder GW proper hasn't sat back and gone "You know what, this stuff FW's putting out is pretty great. Maybe more'a that and fewer Decurions!".

To make a wrestling parallell, FW is the NXT to GW's WWE

 Talys wrote:


Incidentally, I DO think that GW wants to build a fair and balanced ruleset. The problem is, they have so many factions and they change their definition of "fair and balanced" or even what belongs in the game, before they finish an edition, so it turns into chopped tuna.

If you look at all the 2014 codex releases, they are all pretty balanced with each other. If you look at all the 2015 codex releases (and 2016 SW changes), they are all pretty balanced with each other too. The problem is, they're horribly imbalanced against each other. And then there's all the stuff that predates 2014...

This has always been the way of things with GW. The introduction of more unit types -- fortresses, flyers, apocalypse units, etc -- formations that give you free stuff, and more special rules, overlapping with a much faster rate of releasing new edition and new codexes, has simply made things worse than ever.

I don't know if GW ever want to balance the game. Perhaps intellectually they do, but perhaps it's impossible from a business angle. The first thing to do would be to stop publishing new stuff. Every new rule published changes the balance of the game. Can GW afford not to publish any new rules for say a year, then publish an entirely new edition and all the codexes and formations?

I still believe an computer model could help them do it, but that's irrelevant if the company would collapse in the time taken to set up and run the simulation and incorporate its results into a new rulebook.

I think GW have taken the view that they can ignore serious tournament players, remove the Balance paragraph from the rules and replace it with the Forging The Narrative paragraph, and rely on selling to a larger audience who aren't that concerned with having a balanced game.

This clearly is the thrust of AoS.

 Talys wrote:

Incidentally, I DO think that GW wants to build a fair and balanced ruleset.

How do you explain AoS?

 Talys wrote:

Incidentally, I DO think that GW wants to build a fair and balanced ruleset.

Honestly, I believe that's not their priority. You can clearly see in the way they design their games they don't think the rules are that important. I still remember that post on the blog of one investor telling how GW see their business - and the gaming part was defintely not in their list. They sell models - games are just one small way to achieve that purpose. Others are modelling/painting, collecting and reading novels/background.

You can see with AoS they tell the players to agree between themselves so that they can have fun together. They also make scenarios that are clearly NOT balanced and fair for both players, just for the sake of it. Let's be clear; AoS wasn't designed for being balanced and fair; it was designed so that the players could have full freedom to play whatever they want however they want. Since it's all about mutual agreement, they're basically saying "just make sure your partner also enjoy the game". Balance and fairness...aren't especially necessary for that part, in fact. You can totally play a horribly unbalanced scenario just because it looks cool/is adequate to the narrative and still have fun with it...as long as the players know and agree about that from the very beginning.

Fun is always showed in all their game design. Balance? They just don't care. They know it's not that important - in their eyes. And if someone else is still believing GW WANTS a balanced and fair rule system...they should know they would have done it a long time ago - and WOULDN'T have made AoS if that was the case.

Seriously, listen and read about Jervis Johnson telling his mind on how he perceives games. That guy totally doesn't care at all about balance and fairness in a game system.

 Sarouan wrote:
Let's be clear; AoS wasn't designed for being balanced and fair; it was designed so that the players could have full freedom to play whatever they want however they want.

AoS was designed to give the players full freedom to buy whatever they want, and then put them on a table to roll some dice with later. Game play is pretty low down on the list of considerations.

Herzlos wrote:

AoS was designed to give the players full freedom to buy whatever they want, and then put them on a table to roll some dice with later. Game play is pretty low down on the list of considerations.

That was also the case before. You can't force people to buy something they don't want. Or well, you could...but it asks quite a lot of energy and doesn't work as good.

You know, selling models was ALWAYS the end purpose of GW. It never changed in that way. Thinking AoS is any different from 40k or old Battle is just not true.

So, yeah, saying the obvious is obvious. But they could have made other rules. They chose those. Why? Because there IS a game design behind...maybe just not what the custormers really wanted, but that's what GW design studio made. Balance and fairness weren't just the main drives.

Sarouan wrote:Let's be clear; AoS wasn't designed for being balanced and fair; it was designed so that the players could have full freedom to play whatever they want however they want. Since it's all about mutual agreement, they're basically saying "just make sure your partner also enjoy the game". Balance and fairness...aren't especially necessary for that part, in fact. You can totally play a horribly unbalanced scenario just because it looks cool/is adequate to the narrative and still have fun with it...as long as the players know and agree about that from the very beginning.

I agree with Herzlos - I wouldn't consider the 'freedom' to be all that free. Going over old ground here, but I'd go further and say it constrains players into buying the more powerful models or formations. (I think it'll be more apparent if and when the AoS-specific range grows beyond a handful of musclemen and monsters) GW just cut all those annoying core requirements and mathammering out of the listbuilding process, where the real game was.

Then there's the thing about how free - or fun - the mandatory, railroaded 'fun' is. An extremely bald set of core rules, based around how many 4s you roll and how many special rules you can throw in and line up (the minis seem almost incidental) doesn't sound all that fun to me.
People say how they enjoy AoS and other GW games by throwing back a few beers, rolling a few dice, and having a laugh. Some imply that's how they should be played. I prefer something a bit more involved and challenging than that, so sue me. I can get that, and fun, and the ability to play whatever I want however I want, from a number of more structured and IMO better-written games. I even bought some stormcast eternals to use in one of them, and stuck some prosecutor spears in liberator hands (I know how much those tie into special, unique unit rules) - how's that for playing how I want?

'Mutual agreement' sounds like a copout. Passing the buck to the players in much the same way as forcing them to come up with their own balancing mechanisms, but with a little added twist of some kind of ethical or moralistic blackmail. "You'll turn scrub for AoS because you're not one of those TFGs, amiriiiiite?"
Sure, there's always an element of mutual agreement in wargaming, and I'd much rather people played fairly and pleasantly. But the degree of mutual agreement needed here seems unnecessarily excessive, even self-defeating. Do you really think a wave of fairness and pleasantness is radiating out from Nottingham, and the mindsets and interpretations of most GW gamers - let alone all - around the globe will click into synchronisation, because of this set of rules where all fairness has been stripped out? When fairer fun games exist? And especially when gamers are expected to immediately switch from the previous, list-obsessed, by-the-letter, tot-up-line-up-and-charge attitude that GW core games fostered?

Small wonder that rumour and anecdote declares AoS a disaster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarouan wrote:
You can't force people to buy something they don't want.

Ain't that the truth.

 Sarouan wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

AoS was designed to give the players full freedom to buy whatever they want, and then put them on a table to roll some dice with later. Game play is pretty low down on the list of considerations.

That was also the case before. You can't force people to buy something they don't want. Or well, you could...but it asks quite a lot of energy and doesn't work as good.

You know, selling models was ALWAYS the end purpose of GW. It never changed in that way. Thinking AoS is any different from 40k or old Battle is just not true.

But they've never been so transparent about it as they recently. Oldhammer gave the impression of being a well designed game for the sake of being a well designed game, and had the side effect of encouraging you to buy models because it's so awesome. AoS has the impression of being designed around removing any barriers to a sale, with the game being somewhat playable being a happy coincidence.

Does that make sense?

Like, Warlord makes me buy stuff by bringing out cool stuff, making good games and running the occasional deal. GW seems to try to make me buy stuff by changing the meta to almost make it a requirement.

Please don't get me wrong; I'm not saying I feel GW's current strategy is in the right. I also don't agree with all the game designing choices they made with AoS. What I am saying is that I don't think AoS is just a blatant excuse to sell more boxes to the fans. I do think there is a specific game design behind, otherwise it wouldn't focus so much on player choices.

I still don't like some GW reactions trying to blame the competitive players for playing competitive and "not getting AoS", but then I can understand what they're trying to do with AoS. Of course, they're trying to boost sales for their fantasy miniatures...but they could have used other rules and a point system for the "new game". They did not.

Of course, future will tell if that was a tremendous mistake or not. But to be honest, when we get used to the "no point system" and to change some old habits from That Old Game...well, it's not that annoying in the end.

Since I'm playing mostly with friends, we already agree on a lot of things anyway. And using homemade rules is quite common for GW games since the very beginning. It's not like a trading card game, after all...