There are a lot of threads on why Games Workshop is bad ; there are a lot of threads on why GW fails at certain things while in other areas they exceed extremely well.
I'll discuss both briefly but go further into some basic fundamentals of the world surrounding not only publishing but also in game design.
The first major point is revision ; Yes games workshop does produce a "faq" of sorts but to describe it as lackluster at best and pandering at worst.
The second major point is that they do not have a complete grasp on the testing of their product.
The first thing we are going to examine is from a publishing and editorial stand point. From a publishing standpoint most of the products they produce other than the unfortunate incident with the new Space Marine product are good products in the term that they are printed on quality materials.
Almost every major publisher has a editorial staff; now as games workshops publishing is a set of rule along with material you have not only the job of matching and keeping rules from contradicting each other but also from eliminating bad grammar spelling mistakes etc..
How do most publishers handle this ; well if you examine most publishing companies produce what is called a Advance copy which has not gone through a final editorial process but is produced soley for the purpose of review by informed public and critics. An advance copy serves several purposes first it allows the public a preview and it also allows the company to " beta" test their product on how it will be recieved.
It also allows the company to correct any last minute mistakes looked over by the editorial team before the final product goes to press. Believe it or not alot of books get edited between the Advance copy and the Editorial copy.
Gamesworkshop completely ignores this convention; in fact if they had released a " advance copy " of the Space Marine codex they may have been able to catch the fact that the book disintegrates upon multiple viewings.
This is a pretty time honoured well ingrained part of a editorial process.
Now let's look at a point that Gamesworkshop also ignores which is a revisional process. Gamesworkshop does not release revised copies of their books. Instead they wait until a new product line.
This is pretty ridiculous when you consider that not only does it create profit revenue but also creates the ability to change as well as correct glaring mistakes that have been missed by the editorial process.
That's point one ; there is no real legitimate reason to not produce a revision, simply because as print works and is on a digital medium now before yes revisions were somewhat difficult , but most printing presses are actually just very elaborate large digital printers.
Meaning that your turn around on the product is not a long in depth time frame. A editor can correct with size font with in the same "bounderies" of the published material. As well as correct spelling errors.
There are revisions of almost all novels; why? Because no publisher is perfect whether there is a mistake with the type set being off on page 23 of the latest Stephen King novel.
Having worked somewhat in publishing and digital medium many people can tell you that most novels and for that reason comic books especially are held in a digital formate that is in a protective state.
Game Design ;
Games Workshop produces a set of rules that in itself are carried across multiple mediums and different codexes. Most interactive gaming companies now have a product phase called and I know this is a wild one Beta Testing. Where they release a unfinished product to the public , in order to access more input on said product and correct mistakes.
Its a fundamental process of many products produced by the gaming industry.
Why? Because your public the people many of who are proffesionals in their own right in your area, like to test product and contribute.
It's also a good way to get input on the product you are producings.
You won't see a MMORPG or even a multiplayer released usually without first going through a open beta phase.
What are its advantages?
It helps you , nothing more , nothing less. Its absurd to say that 10 people at one center can test all abilities without fail and create a perfect product.
It's neccessary as you cannot expand and explore all possibilities in a game of almost infinite combinational armies you can only attest to what is printed.
Anyway those are my two points as to why they fail as a gaming publisher not as a game in general. I think their product is excellent. However their delivery of said product is less than to be desired.
The points can be summed up ; why in the age of computers instant gratificication and almost instantaneous communication does 1. Gamesworkshop not produce advance copies . 2. Allow their players to play test a product.
The problem is that you incorrectly see GW as a publisher, whereas GW correctly sees themselves as a miniatures company.
The fundamental disconnect between the two is why you have the mistaken impression that GW is "failing" as a games company.
For example, GW does a *lot* of work on "advance" copy, but as GW isn't a publishing company, their advance copies are of upcoming miniatures, like the FW Brass Scorpion or IG Valkyrie. This is what actually drives GW's advance release schedule.
Unlike, say, WotC for which pretty much everything they produce is either rules or background, GW sees rules as incidental, and background as secondary to the *real* product: miniatures.
Secondly, GW, not being in the rules publishing business, properly sees "Beta testing" as unnecessary and a waste of time. Most likely, they've reached the conclusion that:
- external testers don't uncover much of anything that isn't found internally
- external testers leak copies like a sieve that potentially depress hardcopy sales
To put it bluntly, it's not in their business model. They're a model company, not a game company. They treat everything, from top to bottom, as such. GW does not see a direct link between perfect game balance and sales. They're interested in selling models, not making the best game possible. And even saying that is simplistic.
Here's my example: What does a good games designer need? Well, a good games designer has a background in testing games, knows enough math to do mathhammer, (which requires an understanding of college level math) as well as the writing ability to write complete, well-written rules. He'd probably have a college education and a lot of experience in game testing. How much do you think this guy should make? How many resources do you think GW allocates for this? You really think someone with such qualifications is making peanuts at a mini company?
When writing rules, when all is said and done, just like in a magazine, you need an editor. This editor on top of requiring the skills that a magazine editor has, would also need to have a strong math background and an understanding of the game system itself. How much do you think this guy should be paid? How much do you think GW is willing to pay?
How about releasing rules for free for playtest? I love the idea, I love having codecies first put in white dwarf then revised later. It makes for a better game. It doesn't increase sales. That's the bottom line, and that's what the higher ups care about. We jokingly used to say, "THis is a place of serious miniature business." It's more true than I really care to admit. Blood angels codex in white dwarf sold lots of white dwarves, but had no increase in marine revenue. <- You think free is going to make this better?
You want it to happen? You need to prove to GW (not to me or on a message board) that public testing is worth the effort because it makes money. Everything they've done publicly such as forums has failed badly.
GW is a minatures company first. Everything else (including rules) is secondary.
This is also why so much emphisis is placed on the "hobby" as a whole (the terrain, the painting, the conversions) rather than the game itself. They make more money from selling minatures than they do rules so thats where their focus is.
Don't forget that GW is publically held. This may not seem like it would affect rules, but it does, and here is how: public investors want to see profits, and they want to see them now.
Small, closely held businesses can dedicate themselves to creating the perfect gaming system. Many companies have tried that, some have come close, but nearly all are out of business. GW produces something that's "good enough" and makes a huge profit. I wish the rules were better, but as long as they keep selling, GW isn't going to work overtime to improve anything.
Add in their business model, which sees rules as a vehicle to propel sales of minis, and it's simply a case of GW doing as little as possible to create rules that will sell.
But wouldn't a well written rule set lead to increased overall customer satisfaction with the game itself, which would in turn lead to increased purchases of those models as more people came into the game?
JohnHwangDD wrote:Secondly, GW, not being in the rules publishing business, properly sees "Beta testing" as unnecessary and a waste of time. Most likely, they've reached the conclusion that:
- external testers don't uncover much of anything that isn't found internally
- external testers leak copies like a sieve that potentially depress hardcopy sales
I'm not convinced they do internal testing, for that matter.
If there were no books published by gamesworkshop then there would be no miniatures purchased.
As a publisher they fail pretty spectacularly.
The only thing that prereleasing betas etc. do is increase fervor for your product not take away from the product as a whole as the finished final product will be different.
From a design standpoint ; they just do not care about the opinions of their own player base otherwise they would probably release some sort of test phase for products.
It's only arrogance and a ultimate failing on their part.
On the note of revision. That is just common sense. If you produce a product that has agrievous errors in not only design but in grammar, interpretation etc..
Then you as a publisher generally release a revised edition of said rules or errata.
GW does none of these and does actually miss out on the income a revised edition of codexes would produce.
don_mondo wrote:But wouldn't a well written rule set lead to increased overall customer satisfaction with the game itself, which would in turn lead to increased purchases of those models as more people came into the game?
EXACTLY!
As an example, let's say they write a wonderfully balanced top tier codex for IG, making Commisars, Ratlings and Ogryns viable options due to points cost, special rules and how these units play out in the game. It's safe to say there would be an increase of sales for these items.
don_mondo wrote:But wouldn't a well written rule set lead to increased overall customer satisfaction with the game itself, which would in turn lead to increased purchases of those models as more people came into the game?
It might. That's a cost/benefit analysis question. All of our hunches over the last decade has been that GW sells far more models to non-gamers than we realize. If GW thinks that any increase in sales will be minimal, than there is no reason to invest in more playtesting. I was thinking about this. Let's assume GW wants to keep playtesting in house, but wants to run each new codex against every other codex 10 times. That's 160 games (assuming the codex has to play itself), or 320 games for two codices a year. Assuming two players can run two games per day (allowing time for administrative tasks) that's 320 man/days per year, or 64 man weeks, or 1.28 salaried years (assuming a 50 week work year for vacations and the like). Assuming $35k per year in salary that employee has an overhead of roughly $70k per year. So, to pay for one year of playtesting, it would cost (very roughly) $90,000. Assuming GW takes home 10% of a models price in net profit (a very generous estimate), that playtesting would need to sell $900,000 worth of product a year. They could save some money with open playtesting, but there are still costs in terms of running and administering such a program, not to mention the likelihood of security leaks.
I'd be hard pressed to claim that GW could sell that much more product with tighter rules. Better rules, maybe, but that's a different kettle of fish.
Hollismason wrote: If there were no books published by gamesworkshop then there would be no miniatures purchased.
There's room to doubt this is true. Reaper producing a rules set is relatively new, I've yet to see Hasslefree produce rules, there are plenty of historical model companies that don't produce their own rules, etc. If GW didn't produce rules, people would still buy their models, either as models for other games(like D&D, Hordes of Things,etc.) or just as models(plenty of modelers do this with their vehicles, anyway).
whatwhat wrote:Allow me to correct your Hollismason's statement.
Hollismason wrote: If there were no books published by gamesworkshop then there wouldn'y be anywhere near as many miniatures purchased.
That is indeed true.
I personally will attest to this fact. My first experience with GW were their models, my first purchase being Lilith Hesperax...an excellent model btw. If I had not found out that there was a game for these figures I know I would never have purchased many more of GW figures. At the time, I was collecting Battletech figures as I like both the miniatures and the game. I'm sure I would have continued pursuing that game instead.
While saying that GW is primarily a miniature company is true, it's really distrespectful of GW to produce a convoluted set of rules in order to only stimulate miniature sales. It would be far better for them to liscense out their IP to a real game company so that a concise, cohesive set of rules could be made. At this point both their gaming rules and their miniatures go hand in hand and continuing to produce a disjointed rules system will only hurt them in the end. However, I've been part of this for 10 years or so now and I haven't seen GW change their ways and I doubt they ever will. One thing I can guarantee is how I will not be buying into a 6th ed. of this game unless GW pulls their heads out of their posteriers.
Perhaps the other part of the equation is that GW assumes that most of its customers will be in and out of the hobby before any game system problems become an issue. That's not to say that the designers don't care about the quality of their rules...I actually believe they do. But I'm not sure upper management wants them spending much time on things like FAQs or fine-tuning game balance. As long as a given rules set will keep a 13-year-old boy hooked for a year, I think management is fine with it, and tells the designers to move onto the next project.
Maybe the GW studio works completely differently than my workplace. But here, creatives like me don't have an open-ended amount of time or resources to work with. Sometimes we nail it within the given time frame. Sometimes we don't and aren't completely happy with the end result. But management usually ascribes to the "good plan today is better than a great plan tomorrow" philosophy, and isn't inclined to give us more time or resources to work out the kinks.
It's not hard to imagine that management doesn't want the designers spending time managing and compiling large amounts of playtest data, for instance. Especially if the target market is a teenager and resources are limited -- and they're in an environment in which customers are demanding a faster release rate.
People miss my point. It's not economically practical to do as you suggest. It'll never happen. Not because they don't want a better game, but because it doesn't improve the books (books I mean money). I used to think your way until I worked for them. They do "good enough" because it's not practical to do better. It's hardly arrogance. GW pays all their employees peanuts. They just don't have the resources to do as you suggest. Remember what I said about designer and editor? That's because it's true. You think even with extra playtesting things would be any better? I gurantee the game designers fail at mathhammer...
Hollismason wrote: How do most publishers handle this ; well if you examine most publishing companies produce what is called a Advance copy which has not gone through a final editorial process but is produced soley for the purpose of review by informed public and critics. An advance copy serves several purposes first it allows the public a preview and it also allows the company to " beta" test their product on how it will be recieved.
It also allows the company to correct any last minute mistakes looked over by the editorial team before the final product goes to press. Believe it or not alot of books get edited between the Advance copy and the Editorial copy.
Gamesworkshop completely ignores this convention; in fact if they had released a " advance copy " of the Space Marine codex they may have been able to catch the fact that the book disintegrates upon multiple viewings.
This is a pretty time honoured well ingrained part of a editorial process.
I'd be interested to know what size most ARC print runs are, and what size final first edition print run that normally corresponds to. I suspect, but have been unable to find any evidence, that the final print run of each individual codex might not warrant extensive use of ARCs.
Can you back up the statement that GW does not produce ARCs? I can't find any evidence that they do but you seem very sure. Is that true of all GW books, even the best sellers like the W40K and WFB main rulebooks?
Now let's look at a point that Gamesworkshop also ignores which is a revisional process. Gamesworkshop does not release revised copies of their books. Instead they wait until a new product line.
This is pretty ridiculous when you consider that not only does it create profit revenue but also creates the ability to change as well as correct glaring mistakes that have been missed by the editorial process.
This statement is factually incorrect as there are plenty of things in the 5th Ed Ork Codex errata that are printed correctly in my copy of the book. There are still one or two errors remaining, but there has been a clear effort to remove them based on a comparison with the errata. How extensive and effective their revision and reprint policy is can debated, but not its existance.
Unless, of course, GW deliberately put mistakes into their errata that do no really exist so that they look good!
That's point one ; there is no real legitimate reason to not produce a revision, simply because as print works and is on a digital medium now before yes revisions were somewhat difficult , but most printing presses are actually just very elaborate large digital printers.
Meaning that your turn around on the product is not a long in depth time frame. A editor can correct with size font with in the same "bounderies" of the published material. As well as correct spelling errors.
There are revisions of almost all novels; why? Because no publisher is perfect whether there is a mistake with the type set being off on page 23 of the latest Stephen King novel.
Having worked somewhat in publishing and digital medium many people can tell you that most novels and for that reason comic books especially are held in a digital formate that is in a protective state.
Books in general are far more likely to go through a larger number of reprints and to have a longer life cycle than codices. Comics are written with the intent of publishing in a monthly format then collecting into Graphic Novel format, so a review is a far more natural part of the process between stages.
Game Design ;
Games Workshop produces a set of rules that in itself are carried across multiple mediums and different codexes. Most interactive gaming companies now have a product phase called and I know this is a wild one Beta Testing. Where they release a unfinished product to the public , in order to access more input on said product and correct mistakes.
Its a fundamental process of many products produced by the gaming industry.
Why? Because your public the people many of who are proffesionals in their own right in your area, like to test product and contribute.
It's also a good way to get input on the product you are producings.
You won't see a MMORPG or even a multiplayer released usually without first going through a open beta phase.
An MMORPG can be withdrawn at the end of testing and people asked to pay. That is not an option with printed media. The long term ongoing release of material from GW also means that they do no have a finished product t any point to test. There are several strands of development going on at once, and even if you test product with everything that has currently been released, you will be unable to test it with other product lines that are also still in development. Games Workshop can and does test, but not to the extent you would like.
What are its advantages?
It helps you , nothing more , nothing less. Its absurd to say that 10 people at one center can test all abilities without fail and create a perfect product.
It's neccessary as you cannot expand and explore all possibilities in a game of almost infinite combinational armies you can only attest to what is printed.
A million people given a year would not be able to create a perfect product. Games Workshop themselves do not state their aim to be creating the perfect game, but to create a fun hobby. They have succeeded, in my opinion. Failure to be perfect does not preclude enjoyment.
Anyway those are my two points as to why they fail as a gaming publisher not as a game in general. I think their product is excellent. However their delivery of said product is less than to be desired.
I think you want too much from them. I doubt their mission statement requires them to fulfil the criteria you are judging them on. The enthusiasm with which their product is received attests to their success. Spending more on internal testing, delaying release time (and therefore profit) with beta testing and/or a more extensive copy-editing process will all result in more expensive products, as there are shareholders to satisfy. Your policies would achieve neither increased overall customer satisfaction (for you maybe, overall, no) nor bigger profits.
A larger issue exists in that GW is being asked to satisfy a vocal tournament audience when their main target audience is people who play at home.
The points can be summed up ; why in the age of computers instant gratificication and almost instantaneous communication does 1. Gamesworkshop not produce advance copies . 2. Allow their players to play test a product.
Answered, with barely any reference to the old chestnut that ARCs would devalue the final release product, as I am not convinced it is even true.
don_mondo wrote:But wouldn't a well written rule set lead to increased overall customer satisfaction with the game itself, which would in turn lead to increased purchases of those models as more people came into the game?
Only to the extent that rules are depressing sales.
The 40k5 rulebook is *very* well-written. GW added what amounts to a full 8+ or 16+ pages of nothing but rules clarifications based on the 40k4 FAQ, so the 40k5 ruleset is *extremely* tight. If you compare the rulebooks, it's amazing to see what GW learned during 4E.
With Apoc being the loosest ruleset that GW has released in recent memory, while driving massive revenue and profits, I think "well-written" is in the eye of the beholder. Apoc caters to a very different crowd than the traditional "rules" guys, and for them, Apoc saying "meh, screw the restrictions, go have fun!" is the best thing evah. For these players, Apoc *is* very well-written.
Given that 40k5 Apoc is driving revenue and actual overall profit, one concludes that GW's rules are more than adequate for the task at hand.
Now, you may argue that GW rules could / should be better. But that's almost certainly more of an issue with Codices, primarily older Codices. I won't disagree that GW could spend more time on rules. But if it doesn't drive revenue and profit, it's a hard argument to make when you're the one paying for the editing and playtesting and responsible for releasing product that makes money.
____
Hollismason wrote: If there were no books published by gamesworkshop then there would be no miniatures purchased.
The only thing that prereleasing betas etc. do is increase fervor for your product
If you produce a product that has agrievous errors in not only design but in grammar, interpretation etc..
GW does none of these and does actually miss out on the income a revised edition of codexes would produce.
Actually, there is a fair chunk of people who buy GW models strictly for painting purposes. Hence "the Hobby" and Golden Daemon painting competition.
Preleaseing Betas in the MMO world only generates cost to support a bunch of leeches who don't pay to play. As you can see from the huge batch of IG rumor releases and previews building steam, GW is pretty good at timing the sneak peeks of new models, and "rumors" releases. They don't need to "Beta" anything at all.
I love that you have a typo in your pro-editing sentence.
GW tried monetizing FAQs via Chapter Approved / Warhammer Chronicle annuals. GW stopped after about a year. One concludes that the number of people wanting FAQs are loud, but do not drive revenue. ____
namegoeshere wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:The problem is that you incorrectly see GW as a publisher, whereas GW correctly sees themselves as a miniatures company.
The fundamental disconnect between the two is why you have the mistaken impression that GW is "failing" as a games company.
I thought this was exactly the op's point? That they put their rules behind their other stuff?
I took the OP's point as that GW was failing because their rules weren't perfect, whereas I believe that GW is succeeding precisely because they don't waste any resources "perfecting" rules that don't need to be perfect. ____
Rymafyr wrote:My first experience with GW were their models, my first purchase being Lilith Hesperax...an excellent model btw.
It would be far better for them to liscense out their IP to a real game company so that a concise, cohesive set of rules could be made.
I will not be buying into a 6th ed. of this game unless GW pulls their heads out of their posteriers.
Lilith? Not bad as a giant-size Eldar - she scales to like 7 feet tall... Also, her default weapons didn't quite work for me.
GW maintains tight control over their core IP, so that won't happen. Also, it's just not in their interest to make the "perfect" game, as assuming such a game existed, there would be no future sales of revisions. GW is crazy like a fox.
OK, we'll see what happens come 6th Ed. You're going to sell your stuff at that point?
As much as I like to rag on GW for the quality of their rules, and such...there business model works. Which means that they can keep creating new models and developing the game.
How many gaming companies have been in business as long, without having to seek outside funding (i.e. acquisition by a larger company)?
Heck, there's some stuff that GW does that's distinctly British (and I have to say, that's not necessarilly a good thing).
John hit it on the head...GW is a miniature company that produces rules to drive sales. A perfect ruleset might conceivably increase sales slightly, but the effort required to produce that ruleset would likely be prohibitive in terms of cost/benefit.
Centurian99 wrote:John hit it on the head...GW is a miniature company that produces rules to drive sales.
Don't say that too loudly, otherwise Shummy might come in here and tell us we're all conspiracy nuts for thinking GW writes new rules to sell new models.
Hi all.
I suppose I can see both sides of the argument.
My own take is that the rules are 'good enough/adequate.'
And most problems arise with interpritations of rules in Codexes/ Army books.
BUT asking for more time and resources to be spent on a 'secondary unquantifiable resource' is a bit optimistic.
However , I feel agrived that I pay premium price for a GW book with inconsistancies ambiguities and typos.( Perhaps this is the real issue with the OP?)
IF the main rules from the Codexes-Army books were available to down load online.And the devs could update them as and when required.
By all means relese a 'background book' with the new minatures , (with modeling and painting guides aplenty.)
But seperating the functional elements that NEED constant revision every few months , from background-modeling and painting that CAN wait 5 to 10 years for updates, just makes sense to me.
If you work out the % value spent on a 'codex rules' per 40k army (Assuming 20 pages actual rules 80 pages fluff-modeling painting )
Thats about £3 out of every £300 + on models and hobby suplies.
Could GW afford to lose 1% of 'Average Gamer Spend''if they retained gamers for longer , because the games become better through quick and easy revisions?
H.B.M.C. wrote:Don't say that too loudly, otherwise Shummy might come in here and tell us we're all conspiracy nuts for thinking GW writes new rules to sell new models.
But that is what they do, isn't it. They profit off of basic human nature to want better. They make a base ruleset imperfectly. Their customer base demands better or corrected rules. So they make codices that are almost balanced except for base rule issues. Their customer base demands better base rulesets. Then they write new base rules. The customers base demands up-dated codices to match the rules.
Note that every time I say demand what I'm really saying is, "sell us more".
Ever notice that you get a codex that your pretty happy with and can deal with even when new codices come out later. That's because they are only"maybe" minutely better and you can adjust with tactics or by buying models that you hadn't already. Ever notice how you gripe about paying 20-25 dollars for the codex. Then GW releases a new base rule set fixing a lot(not all) of the problems from the last ruleset and creates a few new problems. These new problems have us clamouring for an update, yes actually begging GW to make us spend more money. They do it time and time again because it is a very effective business model. There is no better testament to such than how well the company is doing in comparison to other businesses in this economic down turn. This is why I believe if they ever perfect the game, the company will die.
But I'll start from a different perspective. If GW is doing so many things wrong, how come they are leading this market? Mainly because they do a lot more things right than wrong, yet rarely anybody mentions them. But also, because several points are misunderstood:
Their lack of revisioning is not only great, because it sells newer books, as focusedfire pointed out. It is also great, because what needs to be revised changes with nearly every new book. And that is good. Bear with me for another paragraph, though...
For the same reason, I do not believe they do not test their new rules. The changes in the core rule book, for example, are brilliant. They did not break the average armies, yet they changed a lot about what is currently top notch.
This leads to a permanently changing gaming environment, vulgo: the "metagame". Why is that good? If you're about the game itself, do not tell me you change your army every time a new threat shows up.
Don't tell me you're secretly scrapping your lascannons for meltas because with 5th ed., LR became attractive again.
Guess what? With the new IG codex, there will probably a renaissance for weapons to kill light armour. If not with IG, then with DE. If you started scrapping anti-infantry-weapons, because ork players changed from boyz horde style to biker nobz, next stop will be another horde army. One that shoots, though currently there is an opinion that shooting sucks in 5th. We will be pretty surprised, I figure.
The new IG codex will be moaned as imbalanced and badly designed in some issues. But the result? New IG armies are sold. And parts of other armies are also sold, because you need to deal with the new threat.
Why are there still 3rd edition codices around? Because even if they are not updated, they have an influence on the game. deadshane1 has a threat going why so many people take up greyknights nowadays - I think because even though they were not updated, the 5th edition changed the system enough to make them attractive again. Every existing codex that is even remotely compatible (sorry, no chance for 2nd edition squats there) makes the game environment less stable. Which is good, because that sells models every time the scales tip again.
So: Their testing and their revisioning process are top notch. For GW's purposes. It is nothing you can compare to testing MMORPGs, because of the different handling of immaterial and material goods around which the companies are built: You have might build a new character and just hate the devs, but we get to change our army composition and say "thanks, I have to expand now!".
And that was only the take on the aspect of "serious gaming ". There are other points to be made about their handling of the fluff, black library, the handling of casual gamers, different age groups, the smart distinction between FW and GW and the relation of all these aspects (even how fluff influences soft scores that influence serious gamers).
But I think the OP's point dealt mostly with the first aspect.
Like people have previously said in this thread it seems obvious that with regards to profit GW makes their money from minis not rulebooks. The fact that many gamers may not like the rules or how they are presented or the lack of updates doesn't stop those player's from continuing to play the game.
It seems like everyone here still plays the game and that's essentially the key. Player's wanting better rules aren't going to stop buying minis or even rulebooks, but everyone else who is casually attached to the product is potentially more fluid in their purchases.
So out of all of GW's customer's it is us (people who post on forums like this) that are the least likely to ever leave them. That's why even though I might not like it I can at least understand why GW acts the way it does.
JohnHwangDD wrote:OK, we'll see what happens come 6th Ed. You're going to sell your stuff at that point?
Nah...I doubt I'd ever sell the minis I currently have painted etc. I've always collected mini's since the early 80's which is why my first purchase was the Lelith mini. Despite the scale difference, you get no better mini from GW during that time frame that was as dynamically posed and well sculpted.
But don't get me wrong...I have to agree the current ed is the most tightly written ruleset GW has put out at least w/ regard to the RB. It seems their revision process is more attuned to just making a new Edition.
Yeah, really...I don't see how you can claim to make all your money through miniatures and not care at all about rules, but then be so damn protective of them. Let them freaking leak out, then we can do their jobs for them and fix it before it goes to print at least.
I remember a time when people were whining about shelling out an extra 20 bucks for (get this) a re-worded and clarified re-printing of the 3rd Ed. CSM codex.
Of course back then people were talking about how awesome the Wargear book was. Man times sure do change.
And I'm not sure there is another company as aggressive in protection of it's IP than Workshop.
Oh, i'm on the wagon that they are a mini's company and that they sell a ridiculous number of models to people out there who will never play competatively and who just want to get together on weekends in their garages, drink beer, and roll dice. That means they need a ruleset that works and they have that.
Oh, and 5th edition is the best thing to happen to 40k since.....well.....ever really. Though it is a close second to the ending of 2nd edition herohammer in space!
I think they do everything right. Except for the game rules. And the fact that old fluff was better than new fluff.
But what is specifically sucky about the rules problem, is that they have in the past made very good rule sets. Space Hulk, Advanced space Crusade, Epic 40k, all had really good rules.
I hear lotr has good rules too, though I haven't played.
In fact I wonder if they keep the 40k rules sucky, merely to appease all the idiots who would whine if they changed them?
I struggle to believe they don't update the rules because it would take too much time to do so - I think most of them write rules and sketch genestealers in their spare time. (When they aren't painting models of course). Essentially I think it must take more effort to stop the staff bettering the rules than to keep things as static as they are.
I think that most people are missing is that from a publishing or editorial standpoint along with game design Games Workshop ultimately fails.
Are they successful with their miniatures company yes, they are. Are they successful in managing their IP to a degree.
Let's first address some key arguments.
1. Games Workshop is a minatures company first and a game second.
I disagree completely as you cannot have one with out another ; yes gamesworkshop produces one product that supplements another the fact is though as a player and hobbyisst you need only one copy of one itme the rules and multiple copies of another to play the minatures .
Now if the rules reflected only one item needed for play and a tit for tat incentive Gamesworkshop would not nearly be as successful it is through arbitray requirments of the rules in the substance of point values that we are told by games work what amount of their miniatures to purchase in order to use that .
Now , the rules are a catalyst for purchasing miniatures and for furthering the sale of minatures.
The rules and codexes are advertisements in essence for the purchaising of product.
A good example of this would be to look at less successful armies and examine why they fail. For instance let's look at Dark Eldar, it's a lack of support in the rules and updates Ie advertising of product that causes the product to ultimately fail.
In short rulebooks and codexes are advertising for product and designate ultimately for what product a player will be purchasing.
2. Republishing revised editions would cost the company money and be counterproductive
I actually already adressed this issue , but I'll state it again that with the advent of disgital medium corrections made can be minimum ; you do not have to purchas e a new print set you simply programe the computer to reprint the document.
You are imagining a world where a small italian guy goes in a sets out block letters in order to priunt a product which is not what a modern print press looks like ; it is more akin to a large digital laser copmputer printer. Yes, news papers are still printed this way to a degree; for sheer volume and costs production demands it.
However with products that have multiple color pictures and type a digital medium is generally used in both of these instances. Even though the mechanics of actual printing my be different.
3/ Releasing a beta version or advance copy of editions for review by players would be harmful ultimately to the IP as well as sales
Consider first right now a computer game for instance that released a product without extensive beta testing in regard to multiplayer.
Companies all over the world and in differnet genres have discovered what GW tends to ignore that the release of a beta product does not ultimately cause a product to fail but the failing is htat when obvious grievious errors in the poroduct are bnot fixed before release.
Now fist and formost a stripped down version of beta rules does not harm sales at all in any consequential way as although one or two players may soley use it the large majority will purchasethe finished product and that the finished product will most likely have enough vhanges to make the beta product uselless.
Almost all product manufactures release some sort of at least prototype in order to create fervor for their product.
This is just successive pricing as well as Revised editions would need to be purchased it would also garner and maintain intersts in the publications made by games workshop and what was printedi n their monthly magazine if revisions and such were put forth in this manner
gamers who like a perfect set of rules will not play GW games - they will play something else. Those of us that think the rules could be improved but still play proove that there is no need to make perfect rules. Yes there are plenty of people out there who refuse to play GW because the rules are poor, but they are a small minority. Also remember that GW rules are there to give the models a use - GW admit this themselves in WD. Hence the 4 year turnaround, new rules = new armies - check out the promo stickers on the boxes in store for proof. The rules are a small aspect of our hobby. I'm still using the last marine codex and have a large marine army. There's problems if you play in tournaments but realistically how many gamers % wise do this? not that many. Our hobby is about enjoying a game, those who are worth most in sales to GW are this group of people who create crazy things - masive terrain sets, leviathans etc. By the nature of the gamer the rules, as long as they work, are relativly unimportant. I completly skipped 4th edition of the game and still enjoyed the hobby. We're always going to have new rules, they help bolster sales and give reason to by that unit with a new rule. GW are a business not a hobby. They are there to make money from us for the shareholders. if that means putting out a very usable if not perfect rule set then that's what they'll do. It's relativly cheap to right a new rule set, but the cost to take it that stage further and perfect it as pointed out earlier is simply not worth the time, effort and money. Same goes for the who debate about 'are GW products to expensive?' - no, we buy therefore they are correctly priced. 'Do we need a perfect rules set?' - no, we play GW.
As for book = models - there are many people who collect the models first rather than a playable army, and even those who game regulary have models they have bought for the sake of it. I have a banblade because it's cool - I've not used it in a simgle game. Same goes for my Mumak, 2 squads of marines, a bg capital ship, half an epic army, half a warmaster army, several Inquisitor models, an eldar battalion, and countless other models I've got sitting around. We buy what we want. yes that is influenced by rules to some extent, but not buy perfect rules. Those who leave GW due to rules aren't worth enough to make it economical to create a perfect rules set.
Bottom line is if you enjoy it you'll keep playing and spending, if not go elsewhere. if you like cars you wouldn't buy a plane instead. Same principal.
Hollismason wrote: ...but also from eliminating bad grammar spelling mistakes etc..
How do most publishers handle this ; well if you examine most publishing companies produce what is called a Advance copy which has not gone through a final editorial process but is produced soley for the purpose of review by informed public and critics. An advance copy serves several purposes first it allows the public a preview and it also allows the company to " beta" test their product on how it will be recieved.
It also allows the company to correct any last minute mistakes looked over by the editorial team before the final product goes to press. Believe it or not alot of books get edited...
Comedy Gold!!!!
GW and Warhammer has been *only a product for over fifteen years now (possibly longer). A Product not a labor of love. Unfortunately most labor's of love have gone the way of the Dodo. GW survives and thrives despite many years of questionable or downright crappy rules because they hit on an alternate and much needed niche' in the already established historical miniatures market. GW has also been great at cultivating the desire for their crap. To say they are failing is somewhat comical. What are their goals? Certainly not to make the best set of miniature rules out their, certainly to stay in business. Well, they're still in business.
*only a product meaning it ceased to be a labor of love, not a reference regarding how long they've been in business, which is much longer.
don_mondo wrote:But wouldn't a well written rule set lead to increased overall customer satisfaction with the game itself, which would in turn lead to increased purchases of those models as more people came into the game?
EXACTLY!
As an example, let's say they write a wonderfully balanced top tier codex for IG, making Commisars, Ratlings and Ogryns viable options due to points cost, special rules and how these units play out in the game. It's safe to say there would be an increase of sales for these items.
I disagree! A perfect set of rules would never need to be updated, FAQs-ed, altered, changed or need a sequel. A perfect line of miniatures that encompassed all unit types would also fall into this catagory. Sure, sales may increase in the short term but then what? Millions (are there that many of us) of us would be satisfied, play in all the tournies, threads would only be about tactics, techiniques and styles. We'd go about our gaming lives and the designers would need to get paid to attend tournies just to make enough to eat. Then, of course, we'd get bored and find another game to play. It's human nature.
Have I ever played a game of Fantasy or 40k where a rules quandry hasn't come up? Honestly, only once or twice.
Have said rules quandries ever impacted upon my enjoyment of the game? Honestly, again, only once or twice, and on each occasion it was my opponent being overly litigious about such things that ultimately ruined my enjoyment. It would be nice if there were no such quibbles, but thats asking quite a lot from any company.
However, the important thing is, I genuinely enjoy the vast majority (talking 99% here) of my games, so I really don't worry about things so much.
My gaming is pretty much a purely social affair. My gaming circle and I will play at the shop, once I have my board up and running, also round mine. The rules have been shonky for so long, it's an accepted part of the pre battle drill to double check our interpretation of oddities, like ASF in Fantasy, or which bits of cover give what save in 40k.
Yes, I can see rules disputes popping up as being detrimental to the enjoyment of a Tournament setting. But the rules came first, then the Tournaments. The game is designed as a reward for a far larger hobby than just beating your mates. As others have said, the rules are a loss leader enabling the higher sales of models. They were never intended to stand up to Tournament level scrutiny.
GW offers rules sets which enable me to use my model collection on the board. I very much enjoy said rules as part of my social life. In this respect, they are highly successful.
namegoeshere wrote:I personally don't think GW are failing.
I think they do everything right. Except for the game rules. And the fact that old fluff was better than new fluff.
But what is specifically sucky about the rules problem, is that they have in the past made very good rule sets. Space Hulk, Advanced space Crusade, Epic 40k, all had really good rules.
I hear lotr has good rules too, though I haven't played.
Your own argument works against you. Every game you mentioned except LotR, GW has dropped for periods of time due to poor sales performance.
LotR isn't performing so well since the cinematic trilogy ended. GW is hoping the new Hobbit prequel will stimulate sales. If it doesn't the game and most of its peices will probably become special order only. If sales are to low and remain so they might even consider dropping the liscencing agreement. IMHO, I think that would be a mistake and very unlikely, as well, because GW is a very savy corporation that has shown an amazing ability to think in the long term.
namegoeshere wrote:In fact I wonder if they keep the 40k rules sucky, merely to appease all the idiots who would whine if they changed them?
Careful, that sounds an awful lot like a whine. Not trying to be insulting, just pointing out the irony.
namegoeshere wrote:I struggle to believe they don't update the rules because it would take too much time to do so - I think most of them write rules and sketch genestealers in their spare time. (When they aren't painting models of course). Essentially I think it must take more effort to stop the staff bettering the rules than to keep things as static as they are.
Do you go home and work your regular job in your spare time. Just because someone is a banker doesn't mean he's gonna go home and do math.
Hollismason wrote: I think that most people are missing is that from a publishing or editorial standpoint along with game design Games Workshop ultimately fails.
Are they successful with their miniatures company yes, they are. Are they successful in managing their IP to a degree.
I think your missing the point that they are a very successful company/corporation and are fairing much better in these economic times because they realised that pursuing only short term gains can kill a company.
Hollismason wrote:1. Games Workshop is a minatures company first and a game second.
I disagree completely as you cannot have one with out another ; yes gamesworkshop produces one product that supplements another the fact is though as a player and hobbyisst you need only one copy of one itme the rules and multiple copies of another to play the minatures .
There are other successful mini companies out there. Just probably not on the same level as GW.
Hollismason wrote:Now if the rules reflected only one item needed for play and a tit for tat incentive Gamesworkshop would not nearly be as successful it is through arbitray requirments of the rules in the substance of point values that we are told by games work what amount of their miniatures to purchase in order to use that .
Now , the rules are a catalyst for purchasing miniatures and for furthering the sale of minatures.
The rules and codexes are advertisements in essence for the purchaising of product.
A good example of this would be to look at less successful armies and examine why they fail. For instance let's look at Dark Eldar, it's a lack of support in the rules and updates Ie advertising of product that causes the product to ultimately fail.
In short rulebooks and codexes are advertising for product and designate ultimately for what product a player will be purchasing.
Yes, exactly, the rules and therefore the game is one giant promotion. You have to remember that all the rule are part of the advertising of the product and as such are more promotional material than published books. When you understand that then you can draw the parallel between how GW protects their trademarked promotional product and how companies like Coke or Pepsi protect their trademarks.
When you say that GW fails as a publishing company, it's like saying coke fails as a publishing company. Thats because they are not publishing companies. They are corporations both protecting and releasing promotional products. Before you say that the soda companies test before release, ask yourself this, "Would they test market first if it required releasing the recipe?"
As to the Dark Eldar, they are a case of where a failed poorly executed promotion damaged a wonderful concept with a mediocre product line. The thing to note here is that GW not only took action to minimize their losses but learned from that mistake.
Hollismason wrote:2. Republishing revised editions would cost the company money and be counterproductive
I actually already adressed this issue , but I'll state it again that with the advent of disgital medium corrections made can be minimum ; you do not have to purchas e a new print set you simply programe the computer to reprint the document.
You are imagining a world where a small italian guy goes in a sets out block letters in order to priunt a product which is not what a modern print press looks like ; it is more akin to a large digital laser copmputer printer. Yes, news papers are still printed this way to a degree; for sheer volume and costs production demands it.
However with products that have multiple color pictures and type a digital medium is generally used in both of these instances. Even though the mechanics of actual printing my be different.
No, we are imagining kids filesharing then printing high quality hardcopies long before the intended release thus depressing the sale of the product prematurely due to the anticipation of the new Codex. So GW losses money on the promotional collectable pamphlet(Codex) and the product(minis) sales drop. If you don't believe me check the sales history of armies once their updated codex is announced. This doesn't even mention that we are a group of fairly skilled hobbiest that can convert old pieces to represent the cool new stuff. This further kills the product release.
From a corporations point of view it is incredibly necessary to control the timing of these promotions as they are the launch of products that took years of work and very large sums of money.
Hollismason wrote:3/ Releasing a beta version or advance copy of editions for review by players would be harmful ultimately to the IP as well as sales
Consider first right now a computer game for instance that released a product without extensive beta testing in regard to multiplayer.
Companies all over the world and in differnet genres have discovered what GW tends to ignore that the release of a beta product does not ultimately cause a product to fail but the failing is htat when obvious grievious errors in the poroduct are bnot fixed before release.
Now fist and formost a stripped down version of beta rules does not harm sales at all in any consequential way as although one or two players may soley use it the large majority will purchasethe finished product and that the finished product will most likely have enough vhanges to make the beta product uselless.
First, realize that the business model for computer games is about as much of an antithesis to business models of tabletop minatures as you can get. The only things they share are that geeks are their primary market and that they are out to make money.
Lets make this a little more simple. How long do computer games last before your expected to buy an all new game? I think estimating 5 years is being fair. What would happen if you told gamers that they would have to buy complete to the every last model new armies every 5 years. They'd drop the game, therefore the hobby in a heartbeat. You just can't compare the two, its like comparing apples and battletanks.
A good example of when you try to mix the two. Look at computer risk, monopoly, or scrabble. They are all available as computer games and all perform underwhelmingly. Why? Because people end up playing solo games all the time with no human interaction. If they are together in person they break out the old boards and play as a tabletop rather than a desktop. The translation from tabletop to desktop is the reason why DoW is so different from the tabletop game. So different in fact that they are handled by to completly seperate companies. If you don't belive this, call up GW with a question about DoW and see how far you get.
Second, to address your first point. It happens all of the time. Untested games rushed to the store shelves so poorly written that they won't even run unless you immediately go the the web site and start downloading patches. Sometimes it will be six months later and major bugs will be prevalent. It may have gotten better in the past two rears but from 2001-2007 I must have bought a half-dozen game that had to me patched for me to be able to run. It's one of the reasons why I pulled away from computer games.
1) Your own argument works against you. Every game you mentioned except LotR, GW has dropped for periods of time due to poor sales performance.
LotR isn't performing so well since the cinematic trilogy ended. GW is hoping the new Hobbit prequel will stimulate sales. If it doesn't the game and most of its peices will probably become special order only. If sales are to low and remain so they might even consider dropping the liscencing agreement. IMHO, I think that would be a mistake and very unlikely, as well, because GW is a very savy corporation that has shown an amazing ability to think in the long term.
2) Careful, that sounds an awful lot like a whine. Not trying to be insulting, just pointing out the irony.
3) Do you go home and work your regular job in your spare time. Just because someone is a banker doesn't mean he's gonna go home and do math.
1) Space hulk had limited army ranges, Epic had little miniatures, lotr lacks dinosaurs. Surely these are the reasons they fail, not the fact they are better games than 40k? Not being cheeky, I'm genuinely interested in your theory as to why their rules would be a drawback.
2) My whining is good whining, theirs is bad whining
3) If I became a banker out of love rather than prudence , probably.
WHFB was released when I was at university in the early 1980s. At that time, GW was a general game and figure publishing company. They sold a variety of fantasy and war games in their shops, they were publishing games like RuneQuest under licence, they published Citadel Miniatures mainly for RPG type games, and they started publishing their own rules (WHFB) and games such as Judge Dredd and Talisman (not sure when these came out.)
It is impossible to say from their history whether GW regard rules or figures as more important. Nowadays, if you ignore Historical and Specialist, they only publish WHFB, 40K and LoTR. All these games are rules + figures marching in step.
Speaking from experience, training and education as a publisher and manager, I can see no reason why GW can't do better publishing 40K if they want to. So I assume they don't want to, and have good reasons for it. Probably connected with the point mentioned earlier that their core market is 13-year old boys, and there is a fresh crop every year to replace the ones who have moved on.
Hollismason wrote: I think that most people are missing is that from a publishing or editorial standpoint along with game design Games Workshop ultimately fails.
Are they successful with their miniatures company yes, they are. Are they successful in managing their IP to a degree.
Let's first address some key arguments.
1. Games Workshop is a minatures company first and a game second.
I disagree completely as you cannot have one with out another ; yes gamesworkshop produces one product that supplements another the fact is though as a player and hobbyisst you need only one copy of one itme the rules and multiple copies of another to play the minatures .
Now if the rules reflected only one item needed for play and a tit for tat incentive Gamesworkshop would not nearly be as successful it is through arbitray requirments of the rules in the substance of point values that we are told by games work what amount of their miniatures to purchase in order to use that .
Now , the rules are a catalyst for purchasing miniatures and for furthering the sale of minatures.
The rules and codexes are advertisements in essence for the purchaising of product.
A good example of this would be to look at less successful armies and examine why they fail. For instance let's look at Dark Eldar, it's a lack of support in the rules and updates Ie advertising of product that causes the product to ultimately fail.
In short rulebooks and codexes are advertising for product and designate ultimately for what product a player will be purchasing.
2. Republishing revised editions would cost the company money and be counterproductive
I actually already adressed this issue , but I'll state it again that with the advent of disgital medium corrections made can be minimum ; you do not have to purchas e a new print set you simply programe the computer to reprint the document.
You are imagining a world where a small italian guy goes in a sets out block letters in order to priunt a product which is not what a modern print press looks like ; it is more akin to a large digital laser copmputer printer. Yes, news papers are still printed this way to a degree; for sheer volume and costs production demands it.
However with products that have multiple color pictures and type a digital medium is generally used in both of these instances. Even though the mechanics of actual printing my be different.
3/ Releasing a beta version or advance copy of editions for review by players would be harmful ultimately to the IP as well as sales
Consider first right now a computer game for instance that released a product without extensive beta testing in regard to multiplayer.
Companies all over the world and in differnet genres have discovered what GW tends to ignore that the release of a beta product does not ultimately cause a product to fail but the failing is htat when obvious grievious errors in the poroduct are bnot fixed before release.
Now fist and formost a stripped down version of beta rules does not harm sales at all in any consequential way as although one or two players may soley use it the large majority will purchasethe finished product and that the finished product will most likely have enough vhanges to make the beta product uselless.
Almost all product manufactures release some sort of at least prototype in order to create fervor for their product.
This is just successive pricing as well as Revised editions would need to be purchased it would also garner and maintain intersts in the publications made by games workshop and what was printedi n their monthly magazine if revisions and such were put forth in this manner
I thought like you did until I worked for GW. Let me pick out what's wrong with your thinking, and why GW doesn't see it that way:
1. They care about rules enough to the certain point they are now. To get beyond that point costs resources. However, every new gamer brings $500 in a month on average. Veteran gamers don't mean squat compared to new blood. Writing perfect rules makes no difference to new gamers; they simply don't know any better. To put it bluntly, it's not worth the effort. It doesn't make more money for the effort. And you haven't supplied numbers in a mini business to support your theory. It's just simply not true. Better rules do not equal more sales. Go study game balance theory and game cycles. A perfectly balanced game is just as bad as a perfectly broken game. It leads to what's called game breakdown in the game cycle.
Hard numbers: Everyone knows how bad the dark angel's are. My store sold every last Dark Angel army box the store got...over 100 army boxes. The region couldn't keep Dark Angels in stock. Everyone knew the codex was garbage. Chaos didn't do nearly as well...hmm...Hell, the dark angel's release outdid Orcs, and we all know which codex is better. Heck, do you know what sells the most? Space marines. Space marines were with Dark Angels pretty much dead last at GT's last year. Perfect game balance does not equal sales.
2. You've never run a print business. Paper is expensive. Ink is expensive. Most importantly, what's the justification? If I reprint Dark angel's with a few sentences different, will I make more money? No, of course not. Instead I'll just spend more. It's dumb, of course they don't do it. It doesn't matter if it's easy to do. It's still dumb.
3. Fallacy <- hard numbers on blood angels disprove it. GW is not a computer game. Your thinking is how people in the anime industry justify fansubs, and i hate to say it, but fansubs are slowly killing the anime industry. Gw has already figuered out how to hype the codecies by releasing one rumor at a time...they don't need to release whole documents to do that. That, and the way GW releases rumors is easier on the wallet for them.
Let me give you an example that might make it easier to understand. Think of the rules and codecies as a catalog. A catalog doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to tell you what you can purchase. It takes a lot of effort to make a perfect catalog, but in the end, it's a catalog! You do good enough and spend resources on your product.
That's all it is. Besides, like I said before, even if they wanted to they couldn't make a better one anyways. Blah blah about editors and game designers again in one of my posts above.
namegoeshere wrote:1) Space hulk had limited army ranges, Epic had little miniatures, lotr lacks dinosaurs. Surely these are the reasons they fail, not the fact they are better games than 40k? Not being cheeky, I'm genuinely interested in your theory as to why their rules would be a drawback.
It goes to the sciences of business and human motivation. There is a book called, Why We Buy, by a gent named pascal underhill. You read this book and all of the nagging things about how things are marketed and sold, that we suppress because its to frightening to think about, are discussed in this book. This is the guy who turned selling and marketing into a quantifiable science. This guy is the goto guy for a lot of your to merchandisers and retailers. The list of corporations that are his customers is staggering. Seriously, this guy is the reason why milk is always in the back of the store here in america.
Sorry, got a little of subject there.
IMHO, The basic human needs and desires that GW capitalizes upon is challenge, the desire for the newer&better, team fandom, and a basic human tendency towards being a little anal.
1)A perfect ruleset doesn't lend itself to challenge. Once everyone learns the rules, you have fun for a while but eventually you growed boered of the same old/same old. Steak every meal sounds good. But, about day 4 for me is where I'm ready for something else.
2)A perfectly written ruleset doesn't allow for updating or the introduction of new models. Why? Because the new models will probably upset the balance. The fastest way to lose customers is to ruin something deemed perfect. Now if there are already flaws present then the new model is accepted as an attempt to fix. That attempt may fail horribly but it didn't ruin something that was perfect so no harm/no foul. No new models = no challenge and no new players for your favorite army=bored disgruntled fans. So a perfect rule set would kill all four of these human drives right off the bat.
3) Team fandom, every army will be imbalanced a little versus others. perfect rules would eliminate this and remove much of the flavor of the existing armies.
4) I already discusses the anal thing.
You look at the games you just mentioned. when they were or will be rereleased. Look at whats really changing. Epic still has tiny models and space hulk will probably get a greater variety of usable models as that limitation is part of what killed it but if the game doesn't come to more than going down a hall and fight it will quickly grow boring. Ruleset was good and simplistic and grew boring very quickly.
Hulksmash wrote:And I'm not sure there is another company as aggressive in protection of it's IP than Workshop.
How about Sony? They're RIAA members, but that isn't enough, so they install rootkits on their Customer's PCs.
____
Osbad wrote:So release betas without any artwork or fluff... simple.
As above, that (falsely) presumes that the beta generates some actual value that justifies the preparation, release, and follow-up.
____
Hollismason wrote: from a publishing or editorial standpoint along with game design Games Workshop ultimately fails.
What you're missing is that GW (and most of us) could care less whether GW "fails" as a publisher, because that's not how they're measured.
It's like upbraiding me for failing as a weightlifter, or some other secondary / tertiary activity that I happen to engage in. The answer is "so what?". If being a weightlifter doesn't pay my bills, it doesn't really matter. Sure, maintiaining general health is important to me being able to hold down a regular job, but that's secondary to what I really do.
Hollismason wrote: 1. Games Workshop is a minatures company first and a game second.
I disagree completely as you cannot have one with out another
For instance let's look at Dark Eldar, it's a lack of support in the rules and updates Ie advertising of product that causes the product to ultimately fail.
25+ years of GW success as an independent games company shows that your disagreement is meaningless. "Great minis and adequate rules" seems to be a good formula that matches effort against total dollar profit from each segment.
Many would argue that the primary problem with Dark Eldar is their miniatures, considering that, rules-wise, Dark Eldar are shown to remain competitive in practically every major event in which someone bothers to enter them. Again, don't let the facts get in the way of your argument.
Hollismason wrote: 2. Republishing revised editions would cost the company money and be counterproductive You are imagining a world where a small italian guy goes in a sets out block letters in order to priunt a product which is not what a modern print press looks like
We're imagining a world in which it's a pain to re-typeset and re-edit things that are already generating sufficient adequate revenue to cover themselves. GW isn't POD -- they mass-print and distribute internationally. They don't just do one version - they do several language-specific versions.
Hollismason wrote: 3/ Releasing a beta version or advance copy of editions for review by players would be harmful ultimately to the IP as well as sales Consider first right now a computer game for instance that released a product without extensive beta testing in regard to multiplayer.
Almost all product manufactures release some sort of at least prototype in order to create fervor for their product.
Computer product is now monetized under a subscription model, in which the customer only lays claim to a bit of data storage on a mass server. Software can be locked down - if you want to play WoW, you've got a problem if you don't keep paying the subscription fee. GW product is physical and tangible "buy once, use forever".
As noted, GW sneak peeks their minis to build fervor. And they leak rules information. If this marketing works for them, why do they need to release full betas?
First off, I will admit, I didn't take time to read all of this thread. But......
Is it some sort of fad hating on GW? I don't get it.
Also, how can you complain on playtesting. You all can't wait for the next codex, edition, ect to be released. But with a game as open as 40k, with so many options, It would take years to test every possible issue and find ways to fix them.
I agree that GW produces excellent miniatures and lackluster rules. Two things drive me crazy about GW rules.
First, are the GW fans who simply refuse to acknowledge that the rules are lackluster in the first place. These people tend to come in two groups. Those who don't care about the sloppy rules or those who are ignorant about the sloppy rules. Either way, it amounts to the same thing. It's aggrivating to play against someone when they don't have have a grasp on even the fundamental rules issues (I'm not talking about new, inexperienced players here). Example: playing an Ork player and they ram your Land Raider with their death-roller armed Battlewagon and then procede to roll 2d6 for the ramming attacks. It annoys me that they assume that the rules work only the way they think they work. They aren't even aware that there is a huge debate over how to interperet the rules in this case. Of course, if you try to point out these grey areas in the rules to these people then you get labelled as TFG and are accused of trying to rules lawyer to gain unfair advantage.
Secondly, is GW reaction to the holes in their rules (or rather, lack of reaction). Seriously, how difficult is it for GW to put up a faq on their website with definitive answers to rules questions? I mean, the Deathroller ramming issue has been around since the release of the Ork codex. When are they going to put up something official saying "this is how it works" one way or the other. They just need to hire one guy who thay can authorise to respond to these rules questions and have him electronically publish online living faq's. I know they have the e-mail rules question guy, but many people don't feel that he's official enough. They need to publish therse answers publicly.
A lot of people mention that they have been successful for many years by doing it the way they currently do it. That doesn't mean that the way they do things can't be improved. Having a tighter rules set does not have to be cost prohibitive. They can maintain their current business model and integrate better rules without changing everything about the way they do business.
1. Actually I think the other POV is that the rules are perceived as sufficient for what they need to do, rather than "lackluster".
2. If it doesn't drive sufficient additional revenue, why should GW waste effort on FAQs? Why should they hire that one guy if he generates less than one guy's worth of revenue?
Having better rules needs to pay for itself, that's business. If the rules were in dire need of "fixing" or "FAQing" (i.e. depressing sales), then I'm sure GW would address it.
But, if GW is turning a profit, then additional / "better" rules probably aren't needed.
Which has nothing to do whatsoever with the jitters on the world wide stock market in the least, does it? Oh no.
2005-2007, they issued profit warnings. LotR bubble burst earlier, and faster than they had predicted leaving them floundering somewhat.
2008 saw the impact of their cost cutting measures, which sadly came at a time when the whole stock market was plummeting thanks to the Greedy Bankers (who have, piss takingly, said sorry today...)
But no, it's all to do with the rules. Of course it is. I mean, the loss leader is always responsible for drops in stock.
And of course, by syocphant, HBMC means someone who happens to enjoy GW games, and spends a lot of money on them, as opposed to someone who purports to hate their games, yet spends a ridiculous amount of money on them....
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And of course, by syocphant, HBMC means someone who happens to enjoy GW games, and spends a lot of money on them, as opposed to someone who purports to hate their games, yet spends a ridiculous amount of money on them....
It would take years to test every possible issue and find ways to fix them.
Actually it would probably only take a couple of months...judging by how quickly people found the "broken" lists or wargear when the codexes were originally leaked.
Which, surprise surprise, continues to happen despite the fact that GW moved all playtesting in house.
If I test a Codex, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 6 weeks (numbers out the air here...don't read owt into them!) then the Codex has had, including the hours put in by my opponents...480 hours of testing.
Now, the second that book hits the shelves, lets say it sells 1,000 copies on the first day. Not an unreasonable amount I feel, and quite possibly somewhat conservative.
So, for simplicities sake, lets say that a game last a fixed amount of time at 2 hours. That means I'd have played 120 games in those 6 weeks. This number of games will be achieved within the first round of games the new Codex owners play, and then some.....
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:That and with the size of your armies (we've seen the pics!) you know I'm actually right on this one.
No, your comment is a non sequiter. It does not follow.
And I do hate GW's game, which is why I avoid it at all costs and why my group has a set of playtested rules that we've been developing since before 4th Ed came out.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:If I test a Codex, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, for 6 weeks
Except you wouldn't. That'd be mad.
That said, playtesting a Codex isn't easy. It does take a while, especially if you don't do what GW does (ie. put playtesting a Codex into the 'too hard' basket and just make a new set of mandatory special characters).
I did say the numbers were pulled out the air for sake of comparisson.
The only way to achieve total balance would be to drop the flexible selection system, reduce the overall number of units, give each and every unit a specific task in the list, and offer up certain lists, from which no deviation can occur. Then you can playtest these 2 or 3 extremely dull things against each other until 'perfection' is achieved.
Gamesworkshop isa publicly traded company ; I believe one who owns stock can review certain records in regard to finance.
Gamesworkshop stck as far as I know has consistently went down with the rest of the stock markets .
Also from a publishing and game desing perspective Gamesworkshop does fail as a company. TO say someone is successful is not to congrue that they are legitametly always in the right.
or that they do not have faults. ; look at Microsoft prroducts.
The fact is that when you look at other rules publishing companies such as WOTC etc.. the reason these are more popular are not only because in a way it is completely differnt genre.
Which shouldn't be argued , but its through WOTC and others continued support of updates to their rules to not only keep players interested but also to change what they buy.
A good ruleset and game balance will bring more players than a broken ruleset where one specific item or amry dominates.
It's why playtesting is so important.
Now in a day of easily coordinated information through technology we have the ability to test something and almost instaneous produce more results that a group; of 6 playetesters combined.
It's just common math.
How can you argue with math. A more thoroughly playtested and reviewd product is goping to ultimately with the right choices be better ; if something is better generalyl people are more instested then if its a difficult to understand piece of gak.
It alsso makes brilliatn business sense ; the more product you can move the more money you make ; if it takes your 50 testers or in house testers 1 year to play test a codex ,but it takes 6 months to release a bet a review the data which is better?
Which is better?
The ability to put more product that is better tested and more prolific per year or 1 or 2 purchases ?
More product at a higher value or improvement per year for more customers to purchase is better.
Also ; beta testing a product or getting a review copy of a book does not affect the industry as a whole are you smoking crack?
That is the same argument the RIAA uses to fight digital piracy that this incredibly small majority of dedicated players will destroy or ultimately harm Gamesworkshops product is just absolutely ridiculous.
I could go on Pirate Bay right now and download every single gamesworkshop product EVER published.
I don't se Gamesworkshop closing up shop any time soon considering that you can just type in Space Marine Codex in google and get the full damn thing online.
GAmesworkshop has ot accept to a degree a all companies do that the digital medium has arrived and that you have to get with the times.
What's a great point was how the Automobile industry used to be, with domestic and european cars falling apart after only 100,000 miles. Which is fine, because people are forced to buy new cars,
Of course what's amusing is how JD Power got people to actually think about car quality and reliability. Cars are now good for 200,000 or even 250,000 miles, but they still try to get people to replace every 3 years. Looks like those chickens are coming home, as NOBODY actually *needs* a new car because people have finally figured out that current cars last for 15, 20 years at a stretch.
scuddman wrote:I don't think you understand the principle of "good enough" in business. Let me use a real life example, since I'm studying this stuff in Economics. You place a high value on car safety right? You think cars should be safe, after all, how can you place a value on human life? The car companies do it all the time. You think the car you buy is safe? It isn't, all things considered. The car companies have the technology to make a car super safe, to the point where no life will be lost. But it's not economically worth it How much are you willing to spend on a car? 20 grand? 30 grand? The car companies know that you won't spend more on a car. So they cut on safety. They're not going to spend 100 grand per car testing and building the perfect product. Why? Because it won't make money. People won't buy it. It just needs to be safe enough.
You need to get this through your head. It's just not worth it. It costs too much time and too much money.
Second example: dealing with air conditioners. Many air conditioners are built to fail after 4-5 years. Of course, a manufacturer can make an air conditioner that lasts 20 years. Why do you think they don't do that? Why are they selling to you an inferior product? Because after that air conditioner fails you need to buy another one. However, that shoddily built air conditioner only costs $100, so people accept it and move on. What happens if an air conditioner company makes the perfect air conditioner and everyone buys one? You get to the point where no one will buy one. Why? Because the air conditioner you bought 20 years ago still works! Why would you buy another one? Why would an air conditioner company be even stupid enough to research and spend money on such a product?
Saying 'fail' at the start of all your points is needlessly inflamatory.
Furthermore, while you're correct about the 'good enough' principle (some of us might call it built-in obsolescence, but hey let's not get technical), there are two sides to GW rules.
1. Pendulum Swinging (the way GW does 'built-in obsolescence'). 2. Bad rules writing.
The former is a necessary evil. In the same way my air-conditioner will fail in 4 years and I have to buy a new one, certain things will get better, get worse, and new models will replace old. That's cool. We can all live with that. In a perfect world it wouldn't have to happen, but guess what, it ain't a perfect world. GW isn't a charity, they're a business. Blah blah blah. But the latter, bad rules writing, is something that's not hard to fix. It really isn't. While someone like me might go into a Codex looking for the mistakes, the fact that all us here can rip a Codex apart and find the mistakes in it on the day of release, or within a week generate an FAQ as long as my arm (which will go unanswered) just strikes of lazy game design and bad rules writing.
It's one thing to plan that your Codex will be cycled out in 5-6 years and replaced by a new one, it's another to not even care about trying to make the rules good in the first place.
I'll just say, I agree, but now that I've worked for them, I can tell you it'll never happen. What will change that is if another game company consistently eats their market share with a superior product; then and only then will GW evolve.
Why IS it that GW hates the tournement community so?
It seems the only real reason not to come up with adequate FAQ. I mean, many of the customers are clamoring for it. Tournement gamers are just as much customers of GW as are casual gamers.
Is it just less work for them? Could that be a reason? I cannot fathom why adequate FAQ cannot be released.
As far as GW believe, FAQs are not their concern. They do not concede the point that tightening the rules to tournament standard is a) their responsibility, or b) cheap. Despite the fact that Adepticon and and Fluid40k from Dicelikethunder.com have both done it successfully FOR FREE! And they continue to promote an "official" tournament scene that they charge entry for. Which facts give the lie to both of their assertions!
If I was a tournament gamer I'd be cheesed off. As it stands I'm only a casual gamer who couldn't care less about the tournament scene. I just wish GW would employ a proofreader worth their salt and learn to use playtesters properly (well, at all really) so that some of the more obvious horrors didn't have to be D6'd.
Just to clarify my position.
I don't care about perfect army balance.
I don't care about rule errors.
All I care about is a wargame that looks a bit like war, rather than a Beat Takeshi action scene. (I do like Takeshi movies, but hopefully you get my point).
Kilkrazy wrote:Speaking from experience, training and education as a publisher and manager, I can see no reason why GW can't do better publishing 40K if they want to. So I assume they don't want to, and have good reasons for it. Probably connected with the point mentioned earlier that their core market is 13-year old boys, and there is a fresh crop every year to replace the ones who have moved on.
Yes, and to follow on from my earlier point about the preteen audience, maybe the game *is* balanced (in a sense) for their target market.
We vets build armies with purpose. Even if we get sucked in by the shiny new model that isn't all that on the tabletop, we generally think about purchases and have a plan.
Not little Billy. Little Billy the newbie picks up a random assortment of SM kits because they look cool or the guy at the store told him to. And when he and his preteen friends are throwing random assortments of units on the table and playing their games, most of the worst combinations and abuses will never surface. And they stand a good chance of leaving the hobby before they figure out said abuses and make the right purchases.
Put more simply -- little Billy isn't going to purchase 20 nob bikers and call it an army. Thus that imbalance is more or less irrelevant to him and GW's similar customers.
gorgon wrote:Put more simply -- little Billy isn't going to purchase 20 nob bikers and call it an army. Thus that imbalance is more or less irrelevant to him and GW's similar customers.
And neither is the GW studio. From all indications, GW tends to field these wierd theme / variety armies, so such kinds of focused armies just don't apply.
Well you cannot achieve perfection ; but the determination of what is good enough theory is not really efficient as it is arbitrary to whom? If something is "good enough" for one it doesn't mean it is good enough for all. Now a general opinion of the how a game plays over all and how blanaced certain aspects of it compared to others are is what makes us continually strive for new editions.
If GW accepted a "good enough" stance we would still be playing 3rd edtion or 2nd; It's what our opinion of their determination what good enough is that we are discussing this.
Gaming Cycle?? Game Balance theory? You've kind of made your point with the pullshitoutofmyassthatsoundscollegey theory.
There is no overall Game Balance Theory ever published in any peer reviewed magazine; other than the statement that you should have some semblance of both sides in strategic assets be equal as to give both players a fair chance of winning otherwise it's not really a game. FYI it's why people like this little game called chess.
Game Cycle? Yeah again I refer to the case of youdon'tknowwhathehellyouaretalkingabout vs. Supreme Court of Maryland.
What does that even mean seriously.
Unless you are trying to refer to a release period of product where as older product is phased out compared to new product.
Alright let's get back to the last one and address your second one.
First I'd like to see your hard numbers proving that to begin with; here are my corrolations though. I however can point to dozens of failed products that have failed ultimately because of poor playtesting and bad design, if you want a correlation go to gamerankings or another peer reviewed site such as tabletopgames look at reviews then compare bad reviews with bad sales.
Poor reviews and poor product generally equal poors sales. The old you could put a bowtie on a turd but its still a turd applies.
3rd
I have no idea what your reffering to; but its a sustainability of constant procurement by players then I guess. I don't think the issue of where games workshop procures its income mainly from was discussed.
But as a product that is well tested and has a gradual rather than steep learning curve is more attractive to younger customers then I'll conscede that I am correct in saying the game needs better balance and play testing as well as a better product over all as it will create more interest in younger gamers as well maintain their loyalty to a product that doesn't go to gak.
4th
The idea that a higher turn around on new product released in regards to purchasing is true. The less payment you have to make and quikcer you can cycle something out into production is directly related to your sales and regard to time spent testing a product to time spent selling a product. If I spend 1 million dollars testing something I need to make that 1 million dollars back.
Overall cost are reduced by a quicker cycle of release.
It's why wizard of the coast has a very prolific testing of their product and are able to release more product than gamesworkshop and they have to relase a product that balances with about 15 years and 8000 cards of rules.
The main thing that slows the creative process is gametesting and actual creation time of models.
If you have a scupltor completely finished with a product line but you are still sitting on waiting for rules to be playtested and released you are losing money.
4th
I don't think comparing a failing aut industry to a game and hobby company is a good correlation. The federal governemnt mandates what safety features should go on cars; and as most accidents involving vehiclesis 90% of time or higher related directly to human error building a "perfectly " safe car is not possible. Another point to make and as a "economics" major you should know this is the complete and utter failure of business in the american car industry. Car industries are not going to release a perfect car or make claims to such as it is impossible they just have to make it better than their competition.
The idea that it costs to much time and money to revise or release a printed product is marginal if your sales of said product are good. Comparing a revision and recall to a revision of a printed magazine is not a good comparison as the cost to reproduce has already been discussed due to advances in digital medium their is a reduced cost in change of production.
Also, there would not need to be a total revision but simple language change with no added pages would solve problems and not in gneeral overall reproduce a document.
Here is how the printing industry works. hard copy - digital copy - digital copy and files go to printer - printer prints it out through the use of a mystical devise called a computer.
Gutenberg is not turning cogs and pulling out type sets any more for mixed media; FYI this menas a product that contains print and illustrations. It's usually done on a larger machine and printed out either at once or through a difficerent machine and stabled together. You can actual notice the pohysical difference in the codex with the glossy pages having printed illustrations and just typeset pages are slightly different.
The cost to revise and reprint is more in the line of the cost of paying someone to actual do it in the first place not with the actual reprinting of the product ; as you are just changin a document not reprinting a entirely new product.
Your analogy fails as it misses tthe main ingredient that games workshop will not be spending additional monies on purchasing their older product. The cost is only going to be in prinitng. The cost that Autoindustries examine is myraid; one that the cost of recalling a object will be more than the lawsuits and two that replacing the object completely would be cost prohibitve versus when a warranty on said object expires.
II will agree on the air conditioners; for to long america has faced the strangle hold of the air conditioner conspiracy and its grip on the american economy. If only we could expose these corrupt companies and have the federal government step in then we could spend or money on healthcare.
GW themselves names them as a miniature company nowdays. Thats a big diffrence from back when many of us started they were a gaming company with roleplaying games and other stuff published by themselves. I can honestly say that NONE of the people I know and play with would have bought a single model witout the rules.
Now they are an economic investment without the pepole who started it and their ideas. Like many already pointed out, they work exactly the same as any other buisness. If its worth doing by generating enough extra sales they do it, giving enough return on the money invested.
Its only to get with the program or get out.. or my personal option hang around with the stuff I already have and only pick up some stuff people sell on ebay cheap.
WoTC has been developing MTG for almost as long as GW has been developing WHFB/WH40K.
The difference is their product cannot exist seperate of the rules. Our models can. They can sit right next to my Snap-Rite model X-wing with no rules written or looked at. A Black Lotus ($1000 Card) is only worth something if MTG still exists and the Vintage Format exists. If MTG closed up shop tomorrow the Lotus would drop in price back to the value of the card board it was printed on.
I've complained about the rules, I've complained about the Cheese, but any game will have it. If you're playing @ tournaments it's up to the tourney organizer to have a consistent ruling structure based on the game being played, to ensure repeat tourneys. If you're playing @ home with buddies, then take a vote and get on with having fun.
There are classes you can take about game design in college. If your college offers it, I highly recommend it. Even if you never use what they teach, it's highly illuminating about what makes a successful game.
Put game balance theory into google and you can find quite a bit about the topic.
Nothing about game balance has ever been published? Really? You didn't check very hard..it is an old, ancient concept. At the very least you can find articles talking about the concept of chess.
As for the air conditioner thing, it's not just air conditioners. Every single company does that. It's not a conspiracy. It's about making money.
As for the printing thing, you're not getting it. It doesn't matter even if it's only 1 cent. They still wouldn't do it because in the past it never generated revenue. Chaos codex 3.5, dark elves revision, 6th edition. They've done it, it doesn't work. Companies do things to make money. It doesn't matter if it's easy to do, they'll never do it if it doesn't make money.
Gaming cycle: A LOT is written about this. It's not too different from the software release cycle or the OS cycle. Once again, if you can take classes on game design, do so. Studying software release and software testing is fascinating also, since it'll show all the stuff about testing that GW never does. If you want to make a perfect game, the tools to do so are taught there.
Do you know why government mandates safety? Because the car companies won't do it with out it. You can call it a failcraft if you want, but the japanese car companies that make money do it too. And it's a necessary evil..you can't stay in business if you sink 100 grand into a car.
Lastly, you're not getting it. Yes, a badly designed product won't sell. But a perfect one will only sell temporarily. You always need bigger or better. Your talk about not changing editions tells me you didn't look up gaming cycle at all. You simply just don't understand their business model.
gorgon wrote:
Yes, and to follow on from my earlier point about the preteen audience, maybe the game *is* balanced (in a sense) for their target market.
We vets build armies with purpose. Even if we get sucked in by the shiny new model that isn't all that on the tabletop, we generally think about purchases and have a plan.
Not little Billy. Little Billy the newbie picks up a random assortment of SM kits because they look cool or the guy at the store told him to. And when he and his preteen friends are throwing random assortments of units on the table and playing their games, most of the worst combinations and abuses will never surface. And they stand a good chance of leaving the hobby before they figure out said abuses and make the right purchases.
Put more simply -- little Billy isn't going to purchase 20 nob bikers and call it an army. Thus that imbalance is more or less irrelevant to him and GW's similar customers.
This sums up my position pretty well. GWs issued stance on tournament gamers reads to me as: "Moz, this is not your game. Go away."
Will do. PP cares about the competitive game, for now anyways; and that's good enough for me.
I'd say that I grew out of Grim'N'Dark in early highschool anyways.
Design wise, there is a world of difference between Warmachine and 40k.
For a start, Warmachine has 5 Factions (more if you include Hordes, but I don't know much about Hordes. Feel free to correct me if you feel I've missed something). And those 5 Factions tend to revolve around a single common theme. All have Warcasters, who are central to the army, and the Warjacks.
40k however, has more different forces, and each one has a different 'theme' from the others. Doing this, I'm amazed there is any balance or continuity between the forces at all.
Now, this is not a critiscism of PP at all, just illustrating that there are quite a few differences in overall Game Design between the fames/
The difference that I am interested in between WM/H and 40k, is that when the tournament gamers in WM/H say "Hey we wish you guys would be more clear with us, and do X, Y, and Z", PPs response has never been "Well you are tournament gamers, and the game is not meant for you. So we decline your requests."
For what it's worth, Warmachine and hordes do play on the same table. So it's 8 main factions and several merc contracts. Regardless it's a ton of models with a lot of very complicated interactions between them. There are armies built around shooting, close combat, resilience, speed, and dirty dirty tricks. PP's answer has been to be very clear on the phases of each action in the game, to have people on-hand monitoring forums who's rulings carry weight, and to publish FAQs and errata as much as needed to make the rulings of these individuals more visible for everyone. There is discernable imbalance between certain models and warcasters, but the factions themselves all tend to have an equal shot of taking a big tournament when played to their fullest ability.
Edit:
I've also heard often that, like your point, the games should not be compared to each other side by side - since they obviously have different scope. I'm going against this because for me, it is a direct comparison. GW doesn't want me, PP does. My decision is easy.
don_mondo wrote:But wouldn't a well written rule set lead to increased overall customer satisfaction with the game itself, which would in turn lead to increased purchases of those models as more people came into the game?
Yep, if the cost is not too high (and yes cost/benefit anaylsis would easily be done here). After all chess sales kick the absolute out of GW sales.
JohnHwangDD wrote:OK, here's question that we might want to ask ourselves:
How much have you spent on GW rules compared to GW miniatures?
If you spent more on rules, then it's possible that you could see GW as a rules company.
However, I'd guess that the average gamer spends easily 3 times as much on miniatures.
Thats not the appropriate question John. A better question would be:
1A. How much would you have spent on GW miniatures if there were no GW rules?
1B. If the rules were "better" would you have spent more, less, or same?
1C. To former GW gamers, what amount of additional miniatures would you have bought if there were "better" rules?
1D. What is the actual cost for "better" rules?
Hollismason wrote:lots of stuff that misses the mark completely
TL;DR.
The things that you need to get into your head are: - GW isn't a publishing company any more than GM is a publishing company because it publishes manuals and fliers. - GW isn't a software company with product that can be patched or de-authorized on the fly. - GW isn't trying to make the be-all, end-all of gaming that sells one copy and never more - GW *is* a miniatures company in the business of selling minis - everything else is secondary - GW *is* a gaming company that wants some sense of consistency, rather than placing customers on an update treadmill - GW *is* listening to their customers, who, overall, do *not* really need or want Tournament-type FAQs to play a glorified beer&pretzels game
If you can't get the above facts into your head, you're going to continue to fail here.
____
UsdiThunder wrote:WoTC has been developing MTG for almost as long as GW has been developing WHFB/WH40K. The difference is their product cannot exist seperate of the rules.
A Black Lotus ($1000 Card) is only worth something if MTG still exists and the Vintage Format exists. If MTG closed up shop tomorrow the Lotus would drop in price back to the value of the card board it was printed on.
As I noted earlier, that is because, WotC product *is* rules. So *of course*, they do a good job at it after a decade. But if you played at the beginning (up through, say, 4th), you'd know that WotC had a lot of rules problems, too. The Alpha cards are most notorious for this, and it was like this for quite some time before WotC really figured out that they were a rules company and that tournament-style tightness was desirable.
There are a number of people who would like a Black Lotus for collector / nostalgia / casual play - if the price got low enough. If WotC (now Hasbro) went bankrupt, I could see this having a $100 price floor, simply due to rarity and notoriety. It wouldn't drop to $0.10 like a common. ____
Frazzled wrote:1A. How much would you have spent on GW miniatures if there were no GW rules? 1B. If the rules were "better" would you have spent more, less, or same? 1C. To former GW gamers, what amount of additional miniatures would you have bought if there were "better" rules? 1D. What is the actual cost for "better" rules?
1A. I'd benchmark in between $100 and $1000, like Heavy Gear, Jovian Chronicles, or Inquisitor minis, along with Gundam or 1/35 armor kits. These are things that I bought simply because they're pretty to look at and nice to have.
1B. I'm a collector, meaning that I mostly buy what interests me. When things have "better" (i.e. stronger) rules, I might buy a little more of the stronger over the weaker. Net gain is probably <5%. Remember, I'm on a budget, so it's pretty zero-sum. What makes the biggest difference is whether GW makes a model I like. Orks are strong, but I just won't play greenskins. Valks are cool, so I'll buy 3 of them.
1C. n/app. Although if you switch this to Heavy Gear, Btech any of the other high-detail 1970s / 1980s-style TTG rulesets, I'd probably have more if the rules were more streamlined and 40k-like. Heavy Gear stalled at 2 Cadres - if they moved this to a modern 40k-type system, I'd probably be all over it.
1D. I'd say it'd probably double the development cycle time and effort. Or it'd "dumb down" the Codices considerably. GW splits the difference with a product that is "good enough" for the casual gamer, and fast enough that it recovers cost in a timely fashion. 1D.
And as a counterpoint:
1A. I'd benchmark in between $100 and $1000, like Heavy Gear, Jovian Chronicles, or Inquisitor minis, along with Gundam or 1/35 armor kits. These are things that I bought simply because they're pretty to look at and nice to have.
****In my instance, it would be US$ - 0 -. I haven't bought a model just to buy since high school. Going that way it would not have been GW minis.
1B. I'm a collector, meaning that I mostly buy what interests me. When things have "better" (i.e. stronger) rules, I might buy a little more of the stronger over the weaker. Net gain is probably <5%. Remember, I'm on a budget, so it's pretty zero-sum. What makes the biggest difference is whether GW makes a model I like. Orks are strong, but I just won't play greenskins. Valks are cool, so I'll buy 3 of them.
****I respect that. In some ways I am a collector as well. Or I should say was a collector. The elimination of my LATD list put me off in many ways. I've only played a few games of 5th edition. Once in a while I get the urge to being playing heavily again, as now, but it often passes as I get frustrated with the 40K rules set.
1C. n/app. Although if you switch this to Heavy Gear, Btech any of the other high-detail 1970s / 1980s-style TTG rulesets, I'd probably have more if the rules were more streamlined and 40k-like. Heavy Gear stalled at 2 Cadres - if they moved this to a modern 40k-type system, I'd probably be all over it.
****I slipped past that. Go from Avalon Hill, skip a bunch of years to 40K. Truthfully though, had I started with warmachine or FOW I would have stuck with that just as easily. GW games aren't especially special to me.
1D. I'd say it'd probably double the development cycle time and effort. Or it'd "dumb down" the Codices considerably. GW splits the difference with a product that is "good enough" for the casual gamer, and fast enough that it recovers cost in a timely fashion.
1D.
*****Not necessarily. They already develop new books to churn the minis. Free playtesting would eek out the problems. A balanced codex would lead to more balanced sales. I don't think GW develops new models just to see them dally on the shelf, as spawn did with the last chaos codex. In contrast to the only cost rule I'd look at rules development as a form of marketing. A good company will perform proper market research and tailor their product. Rules are just an extension of that product tailoring. When you don't bad things happen **cough entire dark eldar line what were they smoking? cough***
If I sound harsh, that's because I think there's a need. Too many people would walk into a GW store touting their mouths about both prices and the rules. I've spent the vast majority of time on these posts trying to get people educated and understand the finer points and problems about why GW and other game companies can't do these things. Remember when I talked about metal prices? I talked about that way before PP ever talked about raising their prices over metal. These are real issues.
The thing is, when it comes to game balance, I'm on your side. I agree, the rules aren't balanced and aren't tested enough. But that's not going to be enough to cause change.
If you want GW to evolve, or barring that, you want to make your own games company, you need to understand these fundamental problems between game design, game balance, and basic economics.
Too many people walk in and say, "do this, do that." and their solutions aren't well thought out or simply aren't practical.
It's easy to say, "Test the game more! It makes a better game!" You know what? A business doesn't give a crap that it's a better game. Once again, you need to be able to show and demonstrate to higher ups that doing so is an excellent business move. This is a real world skill involving real world business.
Walking in and not having knowledge of basic game design concepts or basic economic factors is guranteed to kill any sort of suggestion you make.
I pick apart the post not because I disagree, but because your assertions are common misconceptions about how to go about fixing the problem.
Now, on to real world numbers. Remember I said we sold every Dark Angel's army box? That the whole region did that? That was a highly successful Dark Angel's release. Fail of a codex. Each army box sold for about $200, those army boxes brought one store in a region over $20,000. That happened the month of March, 2007. 7 stores in my region, including the bunker over $150,000 of sales worth in Dark Angel army boxes. Every last one sold.
June: We sold every last white dwarf with the blood angel's in it for the month of June in the first week. That never happens. White Dwarf never sells out. My store's increase in marine sales amounted to two baal pred direct orders and and about 5 extra boxes of assault squads a week. This was reflected in region numbers, which I no longer have, but definitely June, which is normally a strong GW month because of summer, sucked compared to March. I thought the blood angel's in white dwarf was a superb and excellent idea. When I asked about it, I was told by higher ups straight up, "It would never happen again." Why? It didn't sell squat, that's why. It sold white dwarves, so that showed there was interest, but people didn't buy models. Not significantly, anyways. Enough didn't buy models that the region didn't make target, and my store didn't make target. The only store that made target that month was the Bunker in my region.
Don't believe me? Go look for that white dwarf issue. There's always a crapton of old white dwarves no one wants lying around. Go find that white dwarf for sale. You can't because it sold out.
I'm not supposed to post this, but whatever, this will give a little perspective about the power of new blood coming into the hobby. Let me give you what was my store's targets:
Monday through Friday: 800
Saturday: $1500
Sunday: $1500.
That's $7,000 a week, or about $30,000 a month. That would amount to $360,000 a year from one store. This is NOT net profit, this is total sales, so the numbers are high. Net profit would be about 15%, or $54,000. Not every store succeeds to this point, many stores do better than this target. A well-flowing bunker will pull bigger numbers than this.
Your average FLGS barely pulls in $300 a day. Remember that chart that was released that showed that GW stores were the biggest piece of the pie for revenue? There's a lot less GW stores then gaming stores and they pull in more revenue. That is not a coincidence. So, much as you guys may hate that reality, that is reality. The other reality is how a store is setup. The getting started section, (called the GSS), the intro table, and the intro paint station. You can break down a GW gaming store into those 3 components.
A beginner pulls in $500 on average in his first month. I shouldn't even have to defend that number, it is dead obvious why that is. I need about 60 new gamers a month to make target. That is only 2 new beginners a day.
Okay, okay, I guess I can give you a little more. The number one stat tracked is intro games run. That is because there's a correlation between beginners starting the hobby and number of intro games. One of the hardest things for me to learn and fully understand was that this very number was the difference between a successful store and an unsuccessful store. Remember I said you only need two new recruits a day to make target? Even with silly over priced GW targets? Think how much fail your store is in if you only get one recruit a day. Think how much extra money your store would make with three new recruits a day.
Moz wrote:This sums up my position pretty well. GWs issued stance on tournament gamers reads to me as: "Moz, this is not your game. Go away."
Will do. PP cares about the competitive game, for now anyways; and that's good enough for me.
I'd say that I grew out of Grim'N'Dark in early highschool anyways.
I can't help but think of the parallels with George Lucas and the Star Wars films when talking about this.
Sometime between Empire and Return of the Jedi, Lucas apparently decided his films were for kids, probably because it was the merchandising that was really lining his pockets and not box office receipts. The scripts have stunk ever since. ROTJ and the prequel trilogy made a ton of money and sold a lot of merchandise, so they were a highly successful business venture. As films, they weren't very good. Yet the older fan base kept coming back to each prequel film, HOPING they'd see a return to the smart, adult-oriented writing in Empire.
I think it's a lot like that with GW games and veterans. I don't want to slag on them completely, because I still enjoy their products. But can I see a day in which I finally give them up, deciding they're for kids and not me? Yeah.
Your still young and have the illusion that getting older is about slaying your inner child.
Thats not what does it. It's parenthood that does it. Once the kids are grown and supporting themselves you realize that one of the greatest pleasure of being a muture adult is letting the 10 year old lurking in the back of your brain out to play.
You just don't let him out unsupervised or you'll be dealin' with the coppers really quick.
You get to a point to where you just don't want to take things always so seriously any more.(This point usually starts when you have to start watching your blood pressure.)
Okay, okay, I guess I can give you a little more. The number one stat tracked is intro games run. That is because there's a correlation between beginners starting the hobby and number of intro games. One of the hardest things for me to learn and fully understand was that this very number was the difference between a successful store and an unsuccessful store. Remember I said you only need two new recruits a day to make target? Even with silly over priced GW targets? Think how much fail your store is in if you only get one recruit a day. Think how much extra money your store would make with three new recruits a day.
For one tiny little store? I think you'd hate to see how little local gaming stores make. To put it in perspective, you would have to sell 20 terminator boxes in one day to make target on an average day. Or 140 terminator boxes in one week. Your average gaming store doesn't even sell 20 tactical squad boxes in one week.
Edit: We actually had some days where we did $80 in one day. But our record was over $4,000 on one Saturday. It really varies. Targets are higher during Christmas.
There's a reason why local gaming stores keep going out of business. It's hard to make money. This goes back to my post long ago about why a terminator box is so expensive. Once again, when something does sell, it has to pay for all the other things that don't and just sit around.
Yeah, gaming stores aren't like walmart or Target.
scuddman wrote:
A beginner pulls in $500 on average in his first month. I shouldn't even have to defend that number, it is dead obvious why that is. I need about 60 new gamers a month to make target. That is only 2 new beginners a day.
This might violate your PDA, although you've already been very explicit with the details, but do you realistically average 2 new people a day? That number seems bogusly high to me. I live in Wichita, Kansas where there's a large creative/alternative crowd that, because it's Wichita, Kansas, has absolutely nothing to do on the weekends. Admittedly the advertising quality of our FLGS is low, and most people find their purchases online or at a different venue, but it seems like we'd have trouble averaging two new players a month. And we're the regional hub for gaming. If you want to get pretty much any type of book- or tabletop-based gaming in, you come to our store or drive to Kansas City.
In all honesty, that's what makes me truly wonder how GW manages to stay afloat as a modeling company. If your store target is $360,000 gross, then wow, I honestly don't see it. You're barely covering utilities and wages on a daily basis, and that's if you average 2 customers a day.
How much return business do you experience? I've spent about $4,000 on GW models in the last 18 months, across four armies. That was when I started playing 40k as a "serious" hobby. By all the feedback I receive, I break the mold for average expenditure by at least 4x, and probably closer to 8x.
Why is it that there's this preconception that only tournament gamers want meaningful errata and FAQs? I'm new to wargames, but I can tell you right now that I have no intention of ever playing in a tourney, yet I want the rules to be understandable and fairly balanced. I've been playing RPGs for years, D&D especially, and no one is playing that in a competitive tournament for prizes like with Warhammer. Yet they constantly update that product with errata when there are mistakes and answer rules questions. Now I know some people will say, well their main product is the rules unlike GW, but the point still stands that whether you're trying to be king/queen of your geeky genre by toppling people at the world's largest tourney, or playing with friends in a basement, that you want rules that allow a fair game that are easy to understand and comprehend; and if they aren't you'd like the company that sold you those rules to fix them. Really, I just can not see how only WAAC guys want rules without errors, are understandable and allow for a fair game.
Also, I have to say personally that while I think the miniatures are cool, if there wasn't a game to play with it I wouldn't own more than one of any particular thing when one is good enough to sit on my shelf and look pretty. Also, if a game is easy to understand, has mistakes fixed and is fair; I'm likely to get more involved with it, play it more and buy more of what I need to play more. I really can't see me being the only one who feels that way either. It seems plain and simple to me.
Also, we're not asking for a perfect game, that's impossible, we're asking for a better game, which most assuredly is.
Frazzled wrote:And as a counterpoint:
1A. *In my instance, it would be US$ - 0 -. I haven't bought a model just to buy since high school. Going that way it would not have been GW minis.
1B. *I respect that. In some ways I am a collector as well. Or I should say was a collector. The elimination of my LATD list put me off in many ways. I've only played a few games of 5th edition. Once in a while I get the urge to being playing heavily again, as now, but it often passes as I get frustrated with the 40K rules set.
1C. *I slipped past that. Go from Avalon Hill, skip a bunch of years to 40K. Truthfully though, had I started with warmachine or FOW I would have stuck with that just as easily. GW games aren't especially special to me.
1D. *Not necessarily. They already develop new books to churn the minis. Free playtesting would eek out the problems. A balanced codex would lead to more balanced sales. I don't think GW develops new models just to see them dally on the shelf, as spawn did with the last chaos codex. In contrast to the only cost rule I'd look at rules development as a form of marketing. A good company will perform proper market research and tailor their product. Rules are just an extension of that product tailoring. When you don't bad things happen **cough entire dark eldar line what were they smoking? cough***
OK, that's fair. I came in out of scale modeling and board gaming, so not having rules (or models) isn't a big deal to me. That is, I'm perfectly happy to make stuff just to make it, or to play with cardboard chits. But 40k is nice in that it does both.
You know, you really ought to see if you can play more Apoc-style games. LatD is perfectly OK there, along with Kroot Mercs and stuff.
I got into 40k long before Flames, but I'm pretty sure I would have been very happy to play that.
"Free" playtesting isn't really free, as you need to coordinate and manage the playtesting, then present the results back in a usable form.
If you assume that the majority of sales are to kids (which I am sure is true,) and kids don't care about balance, well-written rules or errata, then all is explained.
Very rarely playing. Trying to get restarted but since 5th came out it has been difficult. Not many opponents with my schedule, and other things are more important.
Kilkrazy wrote:If you assume that the majority of sales are to kids (which I am sure is true,) and kids don't care about balance, well-written rules or errata, then all is explained.
All I can say to that is I remember playing RPGs when I was a kid, even then I knew rules that made sense and didn't contain errors were what I wanted. It made the game run smoother, people had more fun and it made us want more. If a product is a subpar one you stop buying into it because you expect more of the same whether true or not.
Most stores fail at recruiting that often. However, player turnaround at a GW store is high. The redshirts have to rebuild and rebuild their hobby community all the time. Our record was over 100 people in academy at one point during Christmas, and not every beginner purchases academy, so yes, it is possible and is the mark of a successful store.
On the other hand, when we fail at recruiting we get the $80 crapola days where we might sadly barely pull in $500 in one week.
However, a GW store isn't a normal gaming store. We're supposed to funnel veterans to the bunkers and develop new hobbyists. That's why GW stores are small, cramped, and have few tables. They're not built for veterans; the bunkers are.
Return business is a touchy thing. The vast majority of regulars buy very little from the shop, very rarely would it be more than $50 a month. It's not that they go away, it's that they spend a lot less. My shop was unusual in that we had a high amount of turnaround, but we also had unusually high foot traffic.
We did get people that would routinely spend good amounts of money, but they are not the norm. The example I use is my gaming group. I, as a former employee, spend the most easily. I think my record worst I spend close to 7 grand in one year. In two years the other members have bought the starter box, harlequins, and codecies and that's it.
Lastly, recruitment is directly sales and redshirt directed. GW deliberately chooses stores with high foot traffic as a recruitment medium, and then if the red shirts are capable the intro games spawn new gamers, if temporary. The idea, once again, is to funnel players that turn into veterans to the bunkers.
You get about a 10% turnaround on an intro game. If you run 10, you'll get 1 person who will buy an intro box. It's not hard, especially on the weekend and a skilled crew, to run over 100 intro games on a saturday.
If you want an idea of how a GW store is doing, ask the store how many people are currently in their academy.
Kilkrazy wrote:If you assume that the majority of sales are to kids (which I am sure is true,) and kids don't care about balance, well-written rules or errata, then all is explained.
Is that a safe assumption, though? I'd say average playing age, excluding the Greybeards, is something like 27 at my store. Kids think that 40k is cool as hell, but in my experience lack both the financial leverage and commitment to be sustaining hobbyists.
I'm actually good with what you shared - it squares pretty well with what I'd expect.
____
gorgon wrote:I think it's a lot like that with GW games and veterans.
But can I see a day in which I finally give them up, deciding they're for kids and not me? Yeah.
I can't see it. GW gaming is a great release for stress and stuff, it's a chance to kick back and not deal with work and home and all the other stuff. So I'm pretty happy with the way GW does stuff - it meets my needs as a casual gamer.
Now, if you're looking for a hardcore tournament experience, then GW probably isn't really for you. Sure, you've got Adepticon and the rest of the WAACy FAQing TFG events, but you're missing out that 40k is supposed to be a beer & pretzels game. If you screw up a rule, no biggie, you just adjust and make stuff come out "right". That's why GW has TMIR as the guiding principle. ____
scuddman wrote:There's a reason why local gaming stores keep going out of business.
Totally agreed. Though I think that $300 per day ($100k/yr) excludes non-GW spend, which should be high due to things like Magic / Pokemon / Yugioh and hobby supplies, along with in-store event fees (RTTs, leagues, FNM, etc). If the store is run right, they should be grossing $250k+ annually, like a GW store.
____
sourclams wrote:This might violate your PDA, although you've already been very explicit with the details, but do you realistically average 2 new people a day?
How much return business do you experience? I've spent about $4,000 on GW models in the last 18 months, across four armies. That was when I started playing 40k as a "serious" hobby. By all the feedback I receive, I break the mold for average expenditure by at least 4x, and probably closer to 8x.
GW stores are generally placed in high-visibility locations like shopping malls in major metro areas, and are set up as recruiter stations. GW doesn't set up in places like Podunk or Fargo. 12-15 n00bs per week isn't unreasonable.
If you're spending $2500/year, I think that's pretty high. For reference, I budget for less than $350/year, which is about 1/8 of your spend. When I was getting into Magic, I think I kept my card buys <$100/month, or $1k /year, still less than half of your burn rate. Nothing wrong with buying that much stuff, and good on you for being able to do so!
____
Neconilis wrote:Why is it that there's this preconception that only tournament gamers want meaningful errata and FAQs?
I'm new to wargames, but I can tell you right now that I have no intention of ever playing in a tourney, yet I want the rules to be understandable and fairly balanced.
I've been playing RPGs for years, D&D especially, and no one is playing that in a competitive tournament for prizes like with Warhammer. Yet they constantly update that product with errata when there are mistakes and answer rules questions.
Also, we're not asking for a perfect game, that's impossible, we're asking for a better game, which most assuredly is.
Well, only tournament gamers *need* errata and FAQs, because all of their games are against strangers, and it's a non-friendly, competitive environment. Having prizes that only a small number of player can win further exacerbates the situation.
I think everybody wants good rules. We also want regular army updates. And there are over a dozen armies for 40k, over a dozen for Fantasy, and I think LotR is closing in on the army count as well. So if you look at 3 main games, with 30+ supported armies, an annual event on a 4-year cycle, plus special stuff like Apocalypse, Planetstrike - there's a lot of work and not a lot of time. And I think GW is trying to stabilize the gaming environment to some extent, to reduce the whipsawing.
Again, GW isn't a RPG, so the comparison isn't really relevant...
If you've played 40k for any length of time, it'd be pretty clear that things are pretty good right now. Not perfect, but very good.
When it comes to kids starting the game, we have a whole section in our training about talking to the parents. If the kid is 13 or under our instructions are that a parent needs to be there to run the intro game.
You'd be surprised what rich parents will buy for their kids. I remember one Mom just putting stuff on the counter, and when she finally finished, she was like, "Okay, there's stuff for one son!" She bought almost $800 that day. Her sons didn't play the game for longer than 3 months. They were also some of the worst academy students I've ever had the displeasure of teaching.
That's not the norm. Most of your beginners that turn into good, dedicated regulars are in your late teens. Late high school, college kids, people with lots of free time. Generally they'll spend a lot to start and then not spend at all once they have what they want. Your tournament gamer and your whiney kid exist but aren't usually what fuels the game. Your older demographic doesn't spend straight from the store. They'll buy GW stuff, but they know to buy it on ebay, or warstore, or whatever place is cheaper. Your average high school kid can't buy from ebay and doesn't have a credit card, so he'll buy from the store direct. Some old vets like to support the store and will buy from the store direct even though they're aware of pricing elsewhere.
Neconilis wrote:Why is it that there's this preconception that only tournament gamers want meaningful errata and FAQs? I'm new to wargames, but I can tell you right now that I have no intention of ever playing in a tourney, yet I want the rules to be understandable and fairly balanced. I've been playing RPGs for years, D&D especially, and no one is playing that in a competitive tournament for prizes like with Warhammer. Yet they constantly update that product with errata when there are mistakes and answer rules questions. Now I know some people will say, well their main product is the rules unlike GW, but the point still stands that whether you're trying to be king/queen of your geeky genre by toppling people at the world's largest tourney, or playing with friends in a basement, that you want rules that allow a fair game that are easy to understand and comprehend; and if they aren't you'd like the company that sold you those rules to fix them. Really, I just can not see how only WAAC guys want rules without errors, are understandable and allow for a fair game.
Also, I have to say personally that while I think the miniatures are cool, if there wasn't a game to play with it I wouldn't own more than one of any particular thing when one is good enough to sit on my shelf and look pretty. Also, if a game is easy to understand, has mistakes fixed and is fair; I'm likely to get more involved with it, play it more and buy more of what I need to play more. I really can't see me being the only one who feels that way either. It seems plain and simple to me.
Also, we're not asking for a perfect game, that's impossible, we're asking for a better game, which most assuredly is.
I'm with ya dude. I rarely ever go to tournaments and I would like better rules.
With everything said about them being a minis company I just wonder what is so hard about maybe answering rules questions that players have a little more often. People have been arguing that it would cost money to do drafts, pre release rules and revise books, but what does it cost to simply answer the questions that players want to know? Especially when it seems all they need to do most of the time is ask the developers what their intention was.
Is it really so difficult to append a FAQ? I don't understand the whole one FAQ and then that's it. I also don't understand how a faq (space marine faq) can be released that answers a bunch of questions that nobody was really asking and ignores all of the questions that people really wanted to know. I mean its called 'frequently asked questions' for pete's sake lol.
The only thing I can think of is that a faq is based on the rules questions that get asked through email or phone to gw. Which would make sense as many casual gamers will ask questions that more veteran players would see as obvious.
That's a good question and one that's asked often. There's two parts to this answer, neither of which I like.
1. The game designers don't get it. You know the guy who wrote Chaos codex 3.5? I forget his name. When someone pointed out that you could max on oblits and defilers he was like, "Why would you do that?" The concept of WAAC, mathhammer, etc. is alien to them. I wrote a long letter to Jervis about the need for mathhammer once. <shrug> They just don't think it's good for the game to think that way.
Edit: Let me clarify the difference. When I played Tekken with some GW buddies, they considered frame data cheating. Frame data tells me exactly how much recovery time a move has, and memorizing the information gives me a large working knowledge of how to punish any move when blocked, or how to abuse a move that gives you a frame advantage. The GW people considered frame data to ruin the game, and complained that it made "Tekken about numbers." An example of frame data advantage. In CVS2, if i block blanka ball standing up I recover quicker. Some characters can punish blanka ball only if they block it standing. If you didn't read the frame data you wouldn't know that, and you would think blank ball is safe on block.
2. The design crew has limited resources. Why spend effort on a faq? They're already overworked, underpaid, etc. After spending all that crap on limited game design, the last thing you want to do is work for free on a faq. Why work on a faq when you can work on the next release? It's already out, it's already too late, let's move on to the next project.
Lastly, remember what I said about game designers and magazine editors? These guys aren't paid six figures. Don't forget that.
focusedfire wrote:Your still young and have the illusion that getting older is about slaying your inner child.
Thats not what does it. It's parenthood that does it.
Once the kids are grown and supporting themselves you realize that one of the greatest pleasure of being a muture adult is letting the 10 year old lurking in the back of your brain out to play.
You just don't let him out unsupervised or you'll be dealin' with the coppers really quick.
You get to a point to where you just don't want to take things always so seriously any more.(This point usually starts when you have to start watching your blood pressure.)
LOL. I'm almost 40 and have a family.
It's not that I see myself getting out of gaming entirely. It's just that at some point, when a company keeps telling you "this is just for kids," and then treats their products accordingly, you kinda have to start listening.
If you have kids, you probably know the difference between say, Sesame Street and Barney, right? Although Sesame Street is for kids, the writers try to work in little winks and jokes for the parents. Meanwhile, Barney is ONLY for kids and is excruciating for a parent to watch. While I think GW tries to be Sesame Street, their overall trend is Barney-ward.
Eventually, I'll probably make a sidestep into historicals. I have a good start on a Macedonian army already.
Kilkrazy wrote:If you assume that the majority of sales are to kids (which I am sure is true,) and kids don't care about balance, well-written rules or errata, then all is explained.
My middle bro and I started playing the Star Wars CCG at 7 and 11, respectively. My brother's much less of a nerd than I am, but he made the craftiest decks that used subversive strategies. He and I knew all the errata, inside and out, even though it was a little booklet 50 pages long (Special Edition) as well as the 20-30 page rules documents. We would abuse the hell out of those rules, would point out loopholes in tourneys and tell them to the TOs and message boards so maybe someone would listen, and complain about the lack of balance when our respective loves (him and his bounty hunters, me and my rebel scouts) were out of whack with the rest of the other decks.
I think stereotyping kids into ADD-riddled know-nothings is really just the case of not giving them enough credit. When a grown man complains about orks, it's cuz he's reasoned it all out. When a kid does it, it's cuz he doesn't like his friend beating him all the time. Kids probably know when things are broken - they just don't communicate it effectively. I mean you don't take logic and game theory classes until much later so how can you?
To counter that, I have known grown-up wargamers of long experience who are unable to recognise 'broken' or ineffective units and tactics, no matter how much they played.
I don't mean to prove you wrong -- we are both right. It is the ratio of kids playing 40K between the junior grognards and the Wham! Blam! crowd that counts.
I don't think the distinction is so clear on kids vs. adults. The focus is just definitely on the casual player - be it a casual newbie or a casual veteran. It only breaks down when you start taking the game (and winning) more seriously than the designers do.
Regwon wrote:JohnHwangDD hit the nail on the head.
GW is a minatures company first. Everything else (including rules) is secondary.
This is also why so much emphisis is placed on the "hobby" as a whole (the terrain, the painting, the conversions) rather than the game itself. They make more money from selling minatures than they do rules so thats where their focus is.
Yep, Gw is a model company.. they make rules to help sell those models, but at the end of the day, it's the models that are the driving force, not the rules. You buy one book, and usually one codex every 4-6 years.. you buy models all the time. rules and codex total cost, let's say 75 dollars every 4-6 years. models, let's say you aren't a big spender and manage 35 dollars every 3 months.. that's 560 dollars every 4 years.. If you spend more, well there you go.. 75 dollars vs 560 dollars.. see where the profit is?
In the long run - good game rules do count. Models are perhaps more important. But if a company comes up with models of an equal quality - if their game rules are better they will get more players.
It's not impossible that another company with good miniatures will come along
However, it's GW sheer size which ensures it's reign over Hobby Gaming.
As I mentioned about PP, I don't know of any local players, so that has disinclined me more than anything pursuing it further than I did (bought Prime and the first expansion, didn't get a chance to really get into it, so sold it all)
I don't think size ensures anything. There are other companies with resources to challenge GW if they decide to do so.
If with more time more people have more disposable income, so the wargames market seems lucrative
Hasbro has a game - it's called Magic the Gathering, and it's doing quite well. Hasbro also has D&D, which does pretty good. And they've got the D&D CMG. All told, Hasbro's hands are quite full, I think.
In order to successfully launch a new game, you also need players interest. Now PP are up and running fully (in that they have variety kind of rivalling GW, and a decent player base, in the US at least) they have soaked up a fair proportion of former GW Gamers who had moved on for whatever reason.
I mean, look at SST. Lauded when it came out by some as the death of 40k, it's owning company has wound up it's entire minatures wing. By all accounts it had a good rules set. BUT, a lot of the models were slightly shonky, so perhaps that buried them more than anything. Who can tell?
GW is the mighty shark swimming in an ocean full of jellyfish. It's the biggest monster around, but it is still only a fraction of the total biomass.
It is impossible to believe GW's claim to make up 95% of the entire hobby gaming market. There are far too many small companies making rules, figures and accessories of all types.
Certainly, when Rackham hit the skids (yeah..not a great example I know, given they'd hit the skids) their turnover was less than GW's profit, and they were often (but not necessarily accurately) cited as being the next biggest.
Hard to tell about PP though, since they aren't publically listed.
The rules are fine for playing games outside of tournaments. It's when you get into tournament games that you get rules lawyers and people trying to argue small points that were probably over-looked when the rules were made. If a rule doesn't adequately cover a situation, outside of a tourney it's usually very simple to determine what the most sensible outcome should be. When you get into tourneys however, people don't care about what is the most sensible, only what benefits them. The rules weren't made for this type of gaming. A game like warhammer simply has too many different situations that can arise to cover every possible thing in the rules. Playing warhammer absolutely competitively, is like trying to dribble a football. It's simply not what it was meant for. The rules fail when people care more about winning than playing the game.
Kilkrazy wrote:To counter that, I have known grown-up wargamers of long experience who are unable to recognise 'broken' or ineffective units and tactics, no matter how much they played.
I don't mean to prove you wrong -- we are both right. It is the ratio of kids playing 40K between the junior grognards and the Wham! Blam! crowd that counts.
It's not that. I just think that there's more "junior grognards" as you call it than people believe. They want to make good lists, they want to win with them, they care about balance. It's just hidden in all the "LOL I TOTALLY BLEW UP YOUR TANK!" and "Your orks are broken (but I don't know why)!" cries.
EXACTLY!
Not trying to be insulting, just pointing out the irony.
"
