Rick Priestley posted a few comments on Facebook today that I thought the dakka community would find interesting. If this is inappropriate for the Dakka Discussions page I'm sure a Mod will let me know.
It started with following being posted on his wall:
You sir are a legend! Its a shame that gw have lost their way a bit and moved away from the humorous, dark, irrelevant and very British state of Warhammer and 40k that you pretty much invented
After a number of replies from others with similar sentiments, Rick posted the following:
Blimey you turn your back for a day or two! I worked for GW (Citadel in Newark and then GW at Eastwood and Nottingham) for 28 years, and the company changed a great deal over that time, but we always aimed at making money. I can just about remember the days when making money was about having enough in the bank at the end of the month to cover our wages - I don't know if that was ever literally true - but it certainly came across that way! We also enjoyed what we were doing! We enjoyed games and gaming and - of course - the models that went with that. The big recent change is that GW has actually stated - both during the Chapter House court hearing and subsequently to its shareholders - that it considers its market to be collectors of models and not gamers. The games are very much played down internally, and you can see with the latest (very nicely done!) models that they are conceived as collectors pieces that have very little practicality in terms of a wargame. It's perfec tly fine for GW to turn its backs upon wargaming in favour of modelling and collecting if that is the vision of the current management. But the result is that many customers who are or have been passionate about GW's games do feel marginalized.
I should add that we always used to maintain a games design department that was fairly heavy weight - smart guys, some of them rebarbative, bloody-minded and mildly dangerous types (dangerous to themselves on occasion). I won't say who it was... but one of our staff once ran back into the burning building he'd just been rescued from by the fire brigade to recover his 'stash' from the flames! The design team has been run down over the years - the guys who work there now are just not doing the same sort of work and they're not the same sort of people. Probably for the best
...betting the company on the assumption that the market is primarily collectors and not gamers is a big gamble isn't it! In the short term it will work because so many gamers are loyal to the backgrounds and to what is left of the games range (that'll be 40K then). The large, very nicely done, collectors style pieces generate good sales at high margins. I would expect to see an improvement in full year performance under their new CEO - and maybe even a dividend! Long term though... if GW is sincere about changing its market stance (and does not lose its bottle and start to back track - which is still possible) it opens up the market to any number of new companies that are interested in games, gaming and gamers! That won't do GW any harm so long as they are determined to abandon that market - and it would leave them to concentrate on a mixture of high price highly profitable collectibles and licensing its IP out into other media - always something I felt was under exploited due to fear of losing control at the top of the business. But what do I know
Well I'm touched by all the thank yous! So let me add my own. Thank you for making it possible for me and so many of my comrades to earn a living doing something we love - there's not many people get that chance - and I remain eternally grateful.
I hope someone else found this to be interesting as well.
I find this interesting but also a bit disheartened. It confirms that GW is aware of many of the sentiments of its fan base but that its really insistent on giving up on the game and ignore those player sentiments.
Kinda makes you think that the big rush for 7th to get all the codexes current is a set up for the big ending. By that I mean, GW pretty much just keeping the IP and no longer producing any new rules.
OIIIIIIO wrote: Kinda makes you think that the big rush for 7th to get all the codexes current is a set up for the big ending. By that I mean, GW pretty much just keeping the IP and no longer producing any new rules.
I still hope they stop making rules and outsource them to FFG or some other company.
OIIIIIIO wrote: Kinda makes you think that the big rush for 7th to get all the codexes current is a set up for the big ending. By that I mean, GW pretty much just keeping the IP and no longer producing any new rules.
I still hope they stop making rules and outsource them to FFG or some other company.
I'm sorry to say that I have to agree with MWHistorian.. Not because he's a bad guy ( ) but because after 20+ years enjoying the GW hobby and games, I just can't do it anymore. The only GW games I now play on anything like a regular basis are Warhammer Quest, 4th Ed WHFB and 2nd Ed 40k. I have not bought a GW product in nearly 5 years and am instead giving PP and Hordes my money and time.
OIIIIIIO wrote: Kinda makes you think that the big rush for 7th to get all the codexes current is a set up for the big ending. By that I mean, GW pretty much just keeping the IP and no longer producing any new rules.
I still hope they stop making rules and outsource them to FFG or some other company.
I wouldn't say no to that...
That's such a win-win scenario for the players that it will never happen :(
If GW consider their target market to be collectors and modellers why do they target young teen boys? A collector or modeller isn't going to build up huge armies, if you're lucky they will paint up one of each squad / vehicle / single piece.
aka_mythos wrote: I find this interesting but also a bit disheartened. It confirms that GW is aware of many of the sentiments of its fan base but that its really insistent on giving up on the game and ignore those player sentiments.
Well, no, it confirms that Rick Priestly is aware of the sentiments of its fan base, and suggests that GW has no idea who their customers are or what they want, which is an idea that is backed up by Tom Kirby proudly announcing in their financials that they don't do market research.
The move to targeting collectors over modelers seems to be coming from their belief that this is what the bulk of their customers already are. They don't understand their own games or why people, particularly adults, would want to play them.
It more or less confirms what we suspected and expected, from their actions.
As sad it may or may not be GW of the past is gone and the chances of them coming back are slim to non existent, the new entity shares only a name and nothing else.
I would worry that their direction and their ideas of their customers comes at a direct conflict with their manufacturing and infrastructure and they way they handle their IP degrades its value.
This is so weird since they have two sub departments Black Library and Forgeworld that get what the parent company should be doing and how their IP should be handled.
angelofvengeance wrote: I'm not overly familiar with FFG but rules writing wise what are they like?
I've found them to be pretty tight. They aren't perfect, but they are rules writers first and foremost, who have found themselves with a massive hit minatures game.
Uh...that's a load of GAK! :/ There goes that then, does he still work for them and talk about the company like that, or do they really not care about gamers? And the miniatures are impractical for gaming? I love them for my games... I hated this read... I guess it does confirm what the nay sayers have been unloading in the forums.
I've been a fan and customer since the beginning, this is like a kick in the sack.
It should be said that Lord P. has not worked for GW for some years, but clearly he saw the direction they were going while he was there and didn't like it.
I wouldn't be surprised if thats still the case but you know, omnia mutantur.
angelofvengeance wrote: I'm not overly familiar with FFG but rules writing wise what are they like?
I've found them to be pretty tight. They aren't perfect, but they are rules writers first and foremost, who have found themselves with a massive hit minatures game.
They're actually damn good at the Background/RPG side of things, as well. Have a look at some of the artwork on their Dark Heresy (inquisition) and Deathwatch (space marine) RPG lines - a lot of what they've done has felt 'very GW'. One of the best books I remember is Daemonhunter, an Ordo Malleus sourcebook for Dark Heresy, which took the 5th edition Grey Knight codex background and made it actually make sense with only a few minor tweaks. They're very good at adding in minor details that make things very cool - like the 'how to read/generate grey knight armour heraldry' bit, or some of the often sarcastic-but-funny quotes that tend to open chapters:
Investigation Tests
"My first clue? Well, the tentacles were a tip-off..." Confessor Crexus
The move to targeting collectors over modelers seems to be coming from their belief that this is what the bulk of their customers already are. They don't understand their own games or why people, particularly adults, would want to play them.
I don't understand why people, particularly rational people, would want to play them either. It's like they're sitting in the "design studio" (really just the remaining rules writer's cubicle) and all agape that people are still buying the rulebooks. That would also explain why nearly all the fluff is rehashed and the books are nearly all rushed, copy-paste jobs.
The move to targeting collectors over modelers seems to be coming from their belief that this is what the bulk of their customers already are. They don't understand their own games or why people, particularly adults, would want to play them.
I don't understand why people, particularly rational people, would want to play them either. It's like they're sitting in the "design studio" (really just the remaining rules writer's cubicle) and all agape that people are still buying the rulebooks. That would also explain why nearly all the fluff is rehashed and the books are nearly all rushed, copy-paste jobs.
Kind of sad, I fondly remember liking the game during Rick's tenure. I think his design philosophy shows in how things are done with Warlord Games. I was reading the Gates of Antares Beta and while it still could use some work IMHO it seems to play solidly and provide a similar to but different enough experience from 40k. I just don't care that much for the factions as they seem kind of generic and lacking. I would give it a shot though if I had anywhere that was interested in anything beyond Warhammer and/or Warmachine.
It depresses me sometimes being in an area that doesn't want to expand their gaming. Me, I'd be playing Infinity, Dropzone Commander, historical games from basically any era, etc. but nobody cares :(
Are people really that surprised that GW has "abandoned" its base?
I would think this was blatantly obvious as early as Bryan Ansell selling the company.
And the way in which it pursued the LotR license showed that it has little concern for anything but a mercenary pursuit of objectifying its customers.
It holds these properties in such a way as to basically exclude them from others, rather than to really develop them.
At this point, GW seems to be that crazy uncle who used to be a lot of fun when you were young, but as you got older, you realize he is kind of crazy and cranky, having developed beliefs in things like conspiracies, or that there are mind control rays he needs to protect himself from.
Such a pity.
I just wish they produced anything outside the LOTR license that I liked.... I suppose the Tau are kinda cool, but they just don't really do anything with theTau.
I thinks he's right about them going after collectors, but the message has got massively confused at GW.
GW were already targeting collectors, its called Forge World. For all my critical comments about GW (which in themselves are borne of a disire to see them do better) there is barely any criticism I could level at FW's range of models, they're a decent representation of what any collector models company should be aspiring to.
The situation we currently have is GW, the company element who should be targeting the gamer, lack any sort of gateway product and are trying to sell perfectly respectable gaming pieces as collectors items (which they are not) when the only thing they really have in common is the RRP.
Simultaneously, we have FW embarking on the Heresy project, which involves people acquiring far more models, at far greater investment, than was ever really appropriate for their approach.
It's all arse about face, and for all the good will and enthusiasm that the Heresy seems to generate among the fans, it certainly hasn't generated the cash to go with it.
The funny part is that GW can say that they do no market research, they DO hear their fans though. If you need proof of this just look at what happened after some of the Ward codexes dropped. People friggin tweaked out and said about how he was this that and other things. Now when a codex is written (pretty much exactly how it was before) they no longer credit just one person, the credit the design studio.
The move to targeting collectors over modelers seems to be coming from their belief that this is what the bulk of their customers already are. They don't understand their own games or why people, particularly adults, would want to play them.
I don't understand why people, particularly rational people, would want to play them either. It's like they're sitting in the "design studio" (really just the remaining rules writer's cubicle) and all agape that people are still buying the rulebooks. That would also explain why nearly all the fluff is rehashed and the books are nearly all rushed, copy-paste jobs.
They get the intern to write the rules?
Someone would be willing to intern at GW? I'd hate to have that on my resume if I were serious about writing.
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: So what does that say about people who play a game that is just a catalogue? Aside from astounding loyalty, that is...
Rick Priestley: what a dreamboat.
In all seriousness I've wondered why people stick with 40k knowing what kind of company GW is. Either they really don't care that they're being treated like clueless morons who buy anything, or they just figure they enjoy it so they'll deal. I used to chalk it up to just people not wanting to admit that they invested hundreds or even thousands of dollars in such a poor game so that's why people got defensive (because pointing it out makes them look stupid), but I really do see actual loyalty and fanaticism towards GW products, usually coupled with ignorant or outright hostility towards anything else.
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: So what does that say about people who play a game that is just a catalogue? Aside from astounding loyalty, that is...
Rick Priestley: what a dreamboat.
Rather, I'd say that the company magazine, White Dwarf, is the catalog and the "game" is just a vehicle for enthusiasts of the GW Hobby to get together and show each other their collections.
The move to targeting collectors over modelers seems to be coming from their belief that this is what the bulk of their customers already are. They don't understand their own games or why people, particularly adults, would want to play them.
I don't understand why people, particularly rational people, would want to play them either. It's like they're sitting in the "design studio" (really just the remaining rules writer's cubicle) and all agape that people are still buying the rulebooks. That would also explain why nearly all the fluff is rehashed and the books are nearly all rushed, copy-paste jobs.
They get the intern to write the rules?
Someone would be willing to intern at GW? I'd hate to have that on my resume if I were serious about writing.
I knew someone who interned at SeaWorld with the hopes of working for a marine mammal organization afterward. They saw SeaWorld on her resume and asked "why the hell did you work for those people?". No job for her!
At the end of the day I'm just happy that Rick Priestly found a great home at Warlord. I know that many historical players have a gripe or two about bolt action but they have to admit it is a solid, playable rule set that is brining a ton of new blood into historical gaming. Though I must give Warlord et al. due credit for a good rule set and an increasingly nice range of plastics, it can not be ignored that at least some of their progress was spurred along by GW's recent policies.
When I first saw The Gates of Antares models I thought to myself that no one would be interested in them at all. Now I have to admit they have grown on me just a tiny bit.
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: So what does that say about people who play a game that is just a catalogue? Aside from astounding loyalty, that is...
Rick Priestley: what a dreamboat.
Rather, I'd say that the company magazine, White Dwarf, is the catalog and the "game" is just a vehicle for enthusiasts of the GW Hobby to get together and show each other their collections.
This... The game has been nothing more than something to do to share your models. Like playing fetch is a way to share your dogs at a dog park. People who take the game seriously and buy 7 of the same 90$ kit and spray them with home depo silver paint so they can play the game look foolish to the hobbyists and is not the actual market, but GW will gladly take the money of those people.
Pretty weird attitude of GW to have. After all, they know exactly how much of their revenue comes from the rules alone, as well as from starter kits, tape measures, objective/psychic cards, dice, templates, etc, which presumably aren't overwhelmingly bought by "collectors."
Not to mention that GW's painting tutorials (which are really, really good) receive significantly fewer views than the batreps of some of the big youtube accounts.
Taking it further, you could make a few conservative assumptions about numbers of people actively involved in organized play (from GTs to simply pick-up games at the local store). LVO, Adepticon, NOVA, and add a couple of larger events from Florida and Texas, and control for people attending several of those, and you'll get a sizable list of names. And for every person on that list, how many others in his/her local playgroup/playgroup across town? Ten? Twenty? How much revenue is a guy willing to travel across the US giving GW compared to the average customer? Out of GW's revenue of 32ish millions in North America, how much are you accounting for simply by those guys (i.e., large GT attendees plus extended gaming groups) alone? And there's, you know, Canada...
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: So what does that say about people who play a game that is just a catalogue? Aside from astounding loyalty, that is...
Rick Priestley: what a dreamboat.
In all seriousness I've wondered why people stick with 40k knowing what kind of company GW is. Either they really don't care that they're being treated like clueless morons who buy anything, or they just figure they enjoy it so they'll deal. I used to chalk it up to just people not wanting to admit that they invested hundreds or even thousands of dollars in such a poor game so that's why people got defensive (because pointing it out makes them look stupid), but I really do see actual loyalty and fanaticism towards GW products, usually coupled with ignorant or outright hostility towards anything else.
GWombies.
Honestly, on paper, that could be me. I categorise myself as a painter who plays to have something to do to justify their investment. But, because I'm investing in models, not a game, I tend not to be too sensitive to criticism. That, and "importing" models with greater frequency.
But, over the last 18-24 months, the game has become less fun than the effort of loading up minis into a case and driving it all to my local club, then spending time organising a table, then (playing daemons primarily) doing all the before game admin, then getting to play a game which may or may not be entertaining, depending on the dice gods and whether or not myself and my opponent have built lists based on the same philosophy, or if one of us has brought fluffy list and another a competitive, or simply accidentally built a hard counter to the other, is just not worth the effort.
Or, as I do more and more frequently, just play X Wing, where I can carry everything I need in a generously proportioned pencil case, and can have a fun game even if I knock up a crappy list in 5 mins and my opponent decides to replicate the list that won the last World Championship.
Hmm model design- you have seen the retardfist right? Terrible.
Spoiler:
It's a peculiar thing on the Internet where people seem to think providing one specific exception somehow disproves a general point. Forge World models are almost uniformly excellent, the odd duffer doesn't make this less true.
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: So what does that say about people who play a game that is just a catalogue? Aside from astounding loyalty, that is...
Rick Priestley: what a dreamboat.
In all seriousness I've wondered why people stick with 40k knowing what kind of company GW is. Either they really don't care that they're being treated like clueless morons who buy anything, or they just figure they enjoy it so they'll deal. I used to chalk it up to just people not wanting to admit that they invested hundreds or even thousands of dollars in such a poor game so that's why people got defensive (because pointing it out makes them look stupid), but I really do see actual loyalty and fanaticism towards GW products, usually coupled with ignorant or outright hostility towards anything else.
GWombies.
As to the bolded part, read this article, and you'll understand their position better:
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: So what does that say about people who play a game that is just a catalogue? Aside from astounding loyalty, that is...
Rick Priestley: what a dreamboat.
In all seriousness I've wondered why people stick with 40k knowing what kind of company GW is. Either they really don't care that they're being treated like clueless morons who buy anything, or they just figure they enjoy it so they'll deal. I used to chalk it up to just people not wanting to admit that they invested hundreds or even thousands of dollars in such a poor game so that's why people got defensive (because pointing it out makes them look stupid), but I really do see actual loyalty and fanaticism towards GW products, usually coupled with ignorant or outright hostility towards anything else.
GWombies.
As to the bolded part, read this article, and you'll understand their position better:
That pretty much sums up my time playing 40k. I kept hoping for the light at the end of the tunnel, for that moment of when they are great again.
Deep down I have known this will never come since they no longer consider gamers a part of the hobby, only collectors.
WHFB 9th seems like the future they are moving towards. Less emphasis on a large scale game thus less emphasis on volumes of rules mean they can focus on minis more. I wouldn't doubt it if GW was using 9th Ed. as a chance to test this new business practice and applying it to 40k if it does work. Maybe not the shake up End Times has caused, since 40k is the more successful child, but a bigger shift to the 9th Ed. model.
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: So what does that say about people who play a game that is just a catalogue? Aside from astounding loyalty, that is...
Rick Priestley: what a dreamboat.
In all seriousness I've wondered why people stick with 40k knowing what kind of company GW is. Either they really don't care that they're being treated like clueless morons who buy anything, or they just figure they enjoy it so they'll deal. I used to chalk it up to just people not wanting to admit that they invested hundreds or even thousands of dollars in such a poor game so that's why people got defensive (because pointing it out makes them look stupid), but I really do see actual loyalty and fanaticism towards GW products, usually coupled with ignorant or outright hostility towards anything else.
GWombies.
As to the bolded part, read this article, and you'll understand their position better:
I have for years tried talking my older brother into trying other games besides GW and his reply is I am in to deep. I listen to him complain about the direction 40k and WHFB all the time but he keeps going back. It's like a abusive relationship that he can't just walk away from.
aka_mythos wrote: I find this interesting but also a bit disheartened. It confirms that GW is aware of many of the sentiments of its fan base but that its really insistent on giving up on the game and ignore those player sentiments.
Well, no, it confirms that Rick Priestly is aware of the sentiments of its fan base, and suggests that GW has no idea who their customers are or what they want, which is an idea that is backed up by Tom Kirby proudly announcing in their financials that they don't do market research.
The move to targeting collectors over modelers seems to be coming from their belief that this is what the bulk of their customers already are. They don't understand their own games or why people, particularly adults, would want to play them.
Honestly I forgot that Rick Priestley had left GW. So many of us hold on hoping this will all get better buying only the occasional model... Somehow to GW this looks like we're collectors. If the majority of us have become collectors it's only a consequence of GWs poor rules. GW should be afraid if they see themselves as a collectables company. Even amongst collectors the game was the main vector for entry into the hobby. I don't believe we are a collectors market. If we were I think it would show on the second-hand markets like eBay or bartertown but the vast majority of ads are more concerned with acquiring or selling armies rather than collectors pieces.
He's very diplomatic given that their shift towards collectors items and dumping any real interest in quality rulesets and new products led to him being surplus to requirement. Its clear they didn't value his contribution when they scrapped warhammer historical.
Howard A Treesong wrote: He's very diplomatic given that their shift towards collectors items and dumping any real interest in quality rulesets and new products led to him being surplus to requirement. Its clear they didn't value his contribution when they scrapped warhammer historical.
Which (speaking of Warhammer Historicals) they dumped in the most customer-hateful manner possible. They didn't sell down on the books. They didn't make them available as pdfs for purchase on Black Library (or wherever). They stopped selling them and (presumably) destroyed all their remaining stock. WTF?
"We could sell you this book we've already printed...but we're not gonna!"
Howard A Treesong wrote: He's very diplomatic given that their shift towards collectors items and dumping any real interest in quality rulesets and new products led to him being surplus to requirement. Its clear they didn't value his contribution when they scrapped warhammer historical.
Which (speaking of Warhammer Historicals) they dumped in the most customer-hateful manner possible. They didn't sell down on the books. They didn't make them available as pdfs for purchase on Black Library (or wherever). They stopped selling them and (presumably) destroyed all their remaining stock. WTF?
"We could sell you this book we've already printed...but we're not gonna!"
The fact that they would rather destroy stock rather than sell it at a discount and make any profit at all is what's so crazy. They did the same with Dreadfleet IIRC, because they didn't want to give the impression that you could just wait a few months and it would go on sale. Talk about cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KiloFiX wrote: It would be interesting to understand WHEN exactly ( and possibly related who and why) GW started espousing collection over gaming?
Well, they always did to a point. As far back as I recall they always made references to Warhammer being a way to show off pretty figures and play games, but at the time you had a lot of "oldschool" members of the design staff who were ingrained in historical gaming (Rick Priestly, Nigel Stillman, etc.) so still cared about making a game, even if the primary goal was to sell figures. It's just degraded over time to where they stopped caring about the game entirely, perhaps when they went public and became beholden to shareholders and the concept of profit at any cost.
OIIIIIIO wrote: Kinda makes you think that the big rush for 7th to get all the codexes current is a set up for the big ending. By that I mean, GW pretty much just keeping the IP and no longer producing any new rules.
I still hope they stop making rules and outsource them to FFG or some other company.
I wouldn't say no to that...
I wouldn't either.
Because you and I both know someone who would be very excited to see a certain someone do some really good rules for Kasrkin.
Howard A Treesong wrote: He's very diplomatic given that their shift towards collectors items and dumping any real interest in quality rulesets and new products led to him being surplus to requirement. Its clear they didn't value his contribution when they scrapped warhammer historical.
It had more to do with GW never wanting a Historical division to begin with, which is why they so ruthlessly scrapped it when the contract had run its course.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also re: FFG doing 40k. Let them improve their distribution model first. I'd hate having to wait months upon months for the next codex: *insert spunkgargleweewee here* to finally arrive in stores outside of the US.
KiloFiX wrote: It would be interesting to understand WHEN exactly ( and possibly related who and why) GW started espousing collection over gaming?
Well, they always did to a point. As far back as I recall they always made references to Warhammer being a way to show off pretty figures and play games, but at the time you had a lot of "oldschool" members of the design staff who were ingrained in historical gaming (Rick Priestly, Nigel Stillman, etc.) so still cared about making a game, even if the primary goal was to sell figures. It's just degraded over time to where they stopped caring about the game entirely, perhaps when they went public and became beholden to shareholders and the concept of profit at any cost.
Hasbro has to answer to shareholders but you don't see Wizards mismanaging their customer relations in the way GW does. They offer great store support and release events, they communicate their ideas and plans through their website and they offer and range of products supporting different ways to play (how many formats of MtG are there). Meanwhile GW give the impression that they think people will buy stuff their way or it's the highway, and no they don't want to talk about it either.
It's funny that small games companies get involved online and are responsive, and a huge company like Wizards communicates with its gamers and is open about their design process. And then there's GW inberween, who think wall of silence is the best approach.
Howard A Treesong wrote: He's very diplomatic given that their shift towards collectors items and dumping any real interest in quality rulesets and new products led to him being surplus to requirement. Its clear they didn't value his contribution when they scrapped warhammer historical.
Which (speaking of Warhammer Historicals) they dumped in the most customer-hateful manner possible. They didn't sell down on the books. They didn't make them available as pdfs for purchase on Black Library (or wherever). They stopped selling them and (presumably) destroyed all their remaining stock. WTF?
"We could sell you this book we've already printed...but we're not gonna!"
Who remembers Warhamner Trafalgar? Imagine a fantasy version of that instead of Dreadfuleet.
Thud wrote: Pretty weird attitude of GW to have. After all, they know exactly how much of their revenue comes from the rules alone, as well as from starter kits, tape measures, objective/psychic cards, dice, templates, etc, which presumably aren't overwhelmingly bought by "collectors.".
Well, yes... but not the move towards the codexes being prettier, less practical and coincidentally, more expensive.
They think we buy the books because they're pretty.
Which, admittedly, is about the only reason to buy them, currently.
Also re: FFG doing 40k. Let them improve their distribution model first. I'd hate having to wait months upon months for the next codex: *insert spunkgargleweewee here* to finally arrive in stores outside of the US.
Asmodee already have massively superior European distribution, but weren't so well set up in the States. Hence the recent merger with FFG, so that problem is already a long way towards solved.
KiloFiX wrote: It would be interesting to understand WHEN exactly ( and possibly related who and why) GW started espousing collection over gaming?
Well, they always did to a point. As far back as I recall they always made references to Warhammer being a way to show off pretty figures and play games, but at the time you had a lot of "oldschool" members of the design staff who were ingrained in historical gaming (Rick Priestly, Nigel Stillman, etc.) so still cared about making a game, even if the primary goal was to sell figures. It's just degraded over time to where they stopped caring about the game entirely, perhaps when they went public and became beholden to shareholders and the concept of profit at any cost.
The 'quote' which started this concept was I believe in 2008 when Jervis Johnson said something like 2/3rds of their customers buy the models to collect and never play the game at a Gamesday.
But early 2000s when they that GTs... It really was more about having excuse to display amazing models than winning. 'Winning' was actually mocked and the big status was appearance scores... Why? Because 3rd edition was a broken, unplayable mess and needed heavy comp to make the game playable so there was no point in claiming any form of skill or tactics in any of the games. So as soon as people had to basically hold themselves back to have even a valid functioning game, you had two camps... the "LEGAL = FAIR" group and the "HOBBYIST" group. "LEGAL = FAIR" was universally seen as a joke, and a lot of those people had their armies thrown out of tourneys by judges comps scores and other soft scores.
Fast forward to 2007-2008 when 5th hit and the rules actually became somewhat playable, the "LEGAL = FAIR" crew who was basically unwelcome for a solid 8 years of 3rd edition made a comeback and has snowballed into what we have right now. But by that point when the rules got good enough to even stand on their own, the "we make models for hobbyists and collectors, the game is not important" had already had a decade+ of entrenchment in the corporate philosophies.
So it was always like this... but didn't get said really until competitive 40k began to rise after 5th edition launch. If you didn't play in 3rd edition tourneys, you really have no idea how loose and unplayable the rules used to be and why games were really loose and no one could take competition seriously because there simply was no fairness.
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: So what does that say about people who play a game that is just a catalogue? Aside from astounding loyalty, that is...
Rick Priestley: what a dreamboat.
In all seriousness I've wondered why people stick with 40k knowing what kind of company GW is. Either they really don't care that they're being treated like clueless morons who buy anything, or they just figure they enjoy it so they'll deal. I used to chalk it up to just people not wanting to admit that they invested hundreds or even thousands of dollars in such a poor game so that's why people got defensive (because pointing it out makes them look stupid), but I really do see actual loyalty and fanaticism towards GW products, usually coupled with ignorant or outright hostility towards anything else.
GWombies.
I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I don't give a gak what the company is thinking as long as I enjoy their product, and I enjoy everything about 40k, so I will continue buying it until I dont. It's that simple. I also don't let the incredible cynisim and vitriol against GW color my opinion on their products, even though I certainly agree with some of the more measured reactions. I haven't found any other game that has the same combination of great models, great in-depth fluff, fun rules (note: not saying "balanced") and a reliable and strong player base and community. I play and enjoy other companies games, but 40k is the only one that hits all the right spots.
Pete Melvin wrote: It should be said that Lord P. has not worked for GW for some years, but clearly he saw the direction they were going while he was there and didn't like it. I wouldn't be surprised if thats still the case but you know, omnia mutantur.
The wargaming business community is small and pretty darn intimate. The wargaming business community in the UK is even more so. Heck, I believe Rick's wife currently works for GW. Those guys all know each other, and have known each other for years. In the company, out of the company, it isn't as if they don't keep in touch.
Priestly may no longer be a GW employee, but that doesn't mean he isn't savvy to what is going on within GW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
locarno24 wrote: They're actually damn good at the Background/RPG side of things, as well.
FFG's 40K fluff is far superior to GW's in my opinion. FFG still 'gets' what 40K is about, largely. Like any company, FFG isn't perfect, but the pros, in my view, tend to far outweigh the cons.
I think GW is making the smart business call to concentrate on those things that drive profit.
If you look at the gaming value from a typical $100-150 Kickstarter board game, it's no contest. The sheer amount of replayability is unparalleled compared to GW stuff. And it plays right out of the box.
Sure, you have to wait for the KS to deliver, and it's typically months to a year late, but wow do you get stuff.
With CMoN, etc obliterating the GW's "high value" starter sets with well-themed things that play right out of the box, GW has to move to their niche of complex showcase kits - things that the KS haven't really delivered on. Yet.
The 'quote' which started this concept was I believe in 2008 when Jervis Johnson said something like 2/3rds of their customers buy the models to collect and never play the game at a Gamesday.
Fast forward to 2007-2008 when 5th hit and the rules actually became somewhat playable, the "LEGAL = FAIR" crew who was basically unwelcome for a solid 8 years of 3rd edition made a comeback and has snowballed into what we have right now. But by that point when the rules got good enough to even stand on their own, the "we make models for hobbyists and collectors, the game is not important" had already had a decade+ of entrenchment in the corporate philosophies.
So it was always like this... but didn't get said really until competitive 40k began to rise after 5th edition launch. If you didn't play in 3rd edition tourneys, you really have no idea how loose and unplayable the rules used to be and why games were really loose and no one could take competition seriously because there simply was no fairness.
Indeed.
There is some truth to Priestley's quote, but essentially he is a rival now and it's in his interest to do them down.
Brands today are never as good as the halcyon days in the past when we worked for them... that's my attitude anyway!
JohnHwangDD wrote: I think GW is making the smart business call to concentrate on those things that drive profit.
If you look at the gaming value from a typical $100-150 Kickstarter board game, it's no contest. The sheer amount of replayability is unparalleled compared to GW stuff. And it plays right out of the box.
Sure, you have to wait for the KS to deliver, and it's typically months to a year late, but wow do you get stuff.
With CMoN, etc obliterating the GW's "high value" starter sets with well-themed things that play right out of the box, GW has to move to their niche of complex showcase kits - things that the KS haven't really delivered on. Yet.
I think the smart thing to do would be to do market research, adapt to the changing market and expand.
There is some truth to Priestley's quote, but essentially he is a rival now and it's in his interest to do them down.
Priestly has a ton of very good reasons to 'do GW down', but in my experience his is absolutely not the kind of person to do that for the sake of it.
Priestly is a game designer. That's what's he has done for decades. Table top game design is his livelihood. Table top game design is likely his passion. With this context in mind, the subtext of Priestly's comments is obvious.
Priestly enjoyed making games at Games Workshop until the company sidelined game design, choked off the variety of specialist games, and began to shoot down ideas to create and support new and different games. Rick became a relic in the company, and my guess is that he found it frustrating to not be allowed to develop new, creative games. So he left.
All he's saying is that GW doesn't much care about games anymore, which is obvious.
Rick found a place at Warlord where he continues to ply his trade: game design. He's developing new, creative games, and I bet he is much happier to be working for a company that allows him to do that. There's really not much more to read into his FB posts.
Also re: FFG doing 40k. Let them improve their distribution model first. I'd hate having to wait months upon months for the next codex: *insert spunkgargleweewee here* to finally arrive in stores outside of the US.
Asmodee already have massively superior European distribution, but weren't so well set up in the States. Hence the recent merger with FFG, so that problem is already a long way towards solved.
Thank you for clarifying that. FFG are certainly juggling a but right now, but they will sort it out.
The 'quote' which started this concept was I believe in 2008 when Jervis Johnson said something like 2/3rds of their customers buy the models to collect and never play the game at a Gamesday.
Fast forward to 2007-2008 when 5th hit and the rules actually became somewhat playable, the "LEGAL = FAIR" crew who was basically unwelcome for a solid 8 years of 3rd edition made a comeback and has snowballed into what we have right now. But by that point when the rules got good enough to even stand on their own, the "we make models for hobbyists and collectors, the game is not important" had already had a decade+ of entrenchment in the corporate philosophies.
So it was always like this... but didn't get said really until competitive 40k began to rise after 5th edition launch. If you didn't play in 3rd edition tourneys, you really have no idea how loose and unplayable the rules used to be and why games were really loose and no one could take competition seriously because there simply was no fairness.
Indeed.
There is some truth to Priestley's quote, but essentially he is a rival now and it's in his interest to do them down.
I shouldn't think of 90% of people that play 40k have even heard of Hail Caesar, Bolt Action etc. Warlord are still small-fry compared to GW, despite their growth, and I can't imagine how he would say something like this just to try and get a bit of capital for Warlord.
Rick said years ago that GW was in the business of selling toys to children. That's not to denigrate adults that buy the product, but more of a recognition of where the company's cross-hairs lie, and where they see the opportunity to make money. But, TBH this (and what Rick has said above) surprises me not a bit - it's pretty obvious if you have seen the transformation of GW over the past decade, it's games and miniature releases, and the part they now play within the industry.
GW did market research, and has adapted. You just don't like the direction that they are going, but GW is doing rational things - that much is obvious.
The 'quote' which started this concept was I believe in 2008 when Jervis Johnson said something like 2/3rds of their customers buy the models to collect and never play the game at a Gamesday.
Fast forward to 2007-2008 when 5th hit and the rules actually became somewhat playable, the "LEGAL = FAIR" crew who was basically unwelcome for a solid 8 years of 3rd edition made a comeback and has snowballed into what we have right now. But by that point when the rules got good enough to even stand on their own, the "we make models for hobbyists and collectors, the game is not important" had already had a decade+ of entrenchment in the corporate philosophies.
So it was always like this... but didn't get said really until competitive 40k began to rise after 5th edition launch. If you didn't play in 3rd edition tourneys, you really have no idea how loose and unplayable the rules used to be and why games were really loose and no one could take competition seriously because there simply was no fairness.
Indeed.
There is some truth to Priestley's quote, but essentially he is a rival now and it's in his interest to do them down.
I shouldn't think of 90% of people that play 40k have even heard of Hail Caesar, Bolt Action etc. Warlord are still small-fry compared to GW, despite their growth, and I can't imagine how he would say something like this just to try and get a bit of capital for Warlord.
Rick said years ago that GW was in the business of selling toys to children. That's not to denigrate adults that buy the product, but more of a recognition of where the company's cross-hairs lie, and where they see the opportunity to make money. But, TBH this (and what Rick has said above) surprises me not a bit - it's pretty obvious if you have seen the transformation of GW over the past decade, it's games and miniature releases, and the part they now play within the industry.
He was part of the management buy out and still owns stock. His wife is still employed by black library. I think attributing any kind of financial reaons for these quotes would be a mistake.
JohnHwangDD wrote: GW did market research, and has adapted. You just don't like the direction that they are going, but GW is doing rational things - that much is obvious.
They said that they don't do market research and were quite proud of it. Yes, they're adapting, but not in a way that promotes growth.
GW has clearly read the market and moved to where they have less competition, and they have accelerated that move. Whether they admit to diong "Market Research," or not.
JohnHwangDD wrote: GW has clearly read the market and moved to where they have less competition, and they have accelerated that move. Whether they admit to diong "Market Research," or not.
I think we're talking about two different things.
(from what I understand)
You're talking about them seeing their shrinking market share and revenue and adapting to what makes them most profit.
I'm talking about:
I dunno about that. I think GW has a pretty clear idea of what sells, and how quickly. Those analytics are more important than surveys and focus groups.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I dunno about that. I think GW has a pretty clear idea of what sells, and how quickly. Those analytics are more important than surveys and focus groups.
No, they're not, because without the additional context provided by actual market research they can't possibly know why a thing is selling or not selling, and so any attempts they make to repeat the success or rectify the mistake are a shot in the dark that could cost them a big chunk of money and gain them nothing.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I dunno about that. I think GW has a pretty clear idea of what sells, and how quickly. Those analytics are more important than surveys and focus groups.
Its obvious they know what is selling. not sure they know why.
Given that GW closed their forums, it's also obvious that they know that Internet chatter does nothing to provide useful information about what people want.
Hell, I doubt we could get all of the posters in this thread to agree on what GW should do, and that is less than 20 people.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Given that GW closed their forums, it's also obvious that they know that Internet chatter does nothing to provide useful information about what people want.
Hell, I doubt we could get all of the posters in this thread to agree on what GW should do, and that is less than 20 people.
Market research isn't internet forums, that's for PR, another area they're sorely lacking in.
If GW stopped selling rules for WHFB & 40k they would be screwed, their "collectables" dream would die a death. Can you just imagine trying to flog a £100+ of plastic models to little Johnny's parents?
Parent: What does he do with them once he's finished sticking them together and painting them?
GW redshirt: Eh... nothing
Parent: Didn't you used to do rules so they can play against other armies?
GW Redshirt: Yep, but we decided that our models are too collectable for that sort of thing, so we stopped making rules.
Parent: So £100 for some figures, plus glue & paint, so that they can then just be stuck in a box or on a dusty shelf.
GW Redshirt: But they are "collectable"
Parent: Not when my 12 year old son has finished painting them they won't be!
So unfortunately GW you still need the rules, to justify the purchase to parents. Kill the rules and kill your sales. No parent is going to allow their child to spend £100+ some expensive Airfix kits.
Wolfstan wrote: If GW stopped selling rules for WHFB & 40k they would be screwed, their "collectables" dream would die a death. Can you just imagine trying to flog a £100+ of plastic models to little Johnny's parents?
Parent: What does he do with them once he's finished sticking them together and painting them?
GW redshirt: Eh... nothing
Parent: Didn't you used to do rules so they can play against other armies?
GW Redshirt: Yep, but we decided that our models are too collectable for that sort of thing, so we stopped making rules.
Parent: So £100 for some figures, plus glue & paint, so that they can then just be stuck in a box or on a dusty shelf.
GW Redshirt: But they are "collectable"
Parent: Not when my 12 year old son has finished painting them they won't be!
So unfortunately GW you still need the rules, to justify the purchase to parents. Kill the rules and kill your sales. No parent is going to allow their child to spend £100+ some expensive Airfix kits.
Ha... totally not true. Parents take kids to the hobby shop all the time to buy a model to put together and paint and 'sit on a shelf'. In fact, that is how I got started as a kid. I would get to go to the hobby shop and buy a car or plane and spend a few weeks assembling it and painting it. The simple act of hobby time as a reward and constructive use of my time was what is valuable for parents. If you think parents actually attach 'value' to that they can game with the models later, you are insane as they don't care what a child does with a toy or a model or a video game. It is the value of the time it consumes which is on their plate. And sitting at home painting is good use of time for parents.
Actually, as a parent I might prefer models which sit on a shelf than having to have another place to chauffeur my kid to and to have him interact with adults with poor social skills. I would consider it a selling feature to not have a game attached. Hence why kids still like to build model planes, cars, tanks and gundams.
Wolfstan wrote: If GW stopped selling rules for WHFB & 40k they would be screwed, their "collectables" dream would die a death. Can you just imagine trying to flog a £100+ of plastic models to little Johnny's parents?
Parent: What does he do with them once he's finished sticking them together and painting them?
GW redshirt: Eh... nothing
Parent: Didn't you used to do rules so they can play against other armies?
GW Redshirt: Yep, but we decided that our models are too collectable for that sort of thing, so we stopped making rules.
Parent: So £100 for some figures, plus glue & paint, so that they can then just be stuck in a box or on a dusty shelf.
GW Redshirt: But they are "collectable"
Parent: Not when my 12 year old son has finished painting them they won't be!
So unfortunately GW you still need the rules, to justify the purchase to parents. Kill the rules and kill your sales. No parent is going to allow their child to spend £100+ some expensive Airfix kits.
Ha... totally not true. Parents take kids to the hobby shop all the time to buy a model to put together and paint and 'sit on a shelf'. In fact, that is how I got started as a kid. I would get to go to the hobby shop and buy a car or plane and spend a few weeks assembling it and painting it. The simple act of hobby time as a reward and constructive use of my time was what is valuable for parents. If you think parents actually attach 'value' to that they can game with the models later, you are insane as they don't care what a child does with a toy or a model or a video game. It is the value of the time it consumes which is on their plate. And sitting at home painting is good use of time for parents.
Actually, as a parent I might prefer models which sit on a shelf than having to have another place to chauffeur my kid to and to have him interact with adults with poor social skills. I would consider it a selling feature to not have a game attached. Hence why kids still like to build model planes, cars, tanks and gundams.
The problem is:
GW thinks that's their customer base.
But I see adults spending way more over greater periods of time.
Again, if GW did market research, they'd know who was buying and why.
JohnHwangDD wrote: GW did market research, and has adapted. You just don't like the direction that they are going, but GW is doing rational things - that much is obvious.
Thats a joke, right? GW openly admits they don't do market research. I think what you actually mean is that they decided what their buyers are, and they act as if that's the right path for them to continue on. Market research would imply they're figuring out what they are doing wrong and fixing it, and see what they do right and continue. This is the opposites of market research.
Also, to prove a point: GW says they sell models to people who primarily model. Yet SMs are the biggest seller in all of GW. Probably mostly with the standard kit. Rationally, you're telling me that their "research" shows that people are buying 4-6 boxes for display purposes and not play purposes? Yeah...not fething likely.
JohnHwangDD wrote: GW did market research, and has adapted. You just don't like the direction that they are going, but GW is doing rational things - that much is obvious.
Thats a joke, right? GW openly admits they don't do market research. I think what you actually mean is that they decided what their buyers are, and they act as if that's the right path for them to continue on. Market research would imply they're figuring out what they are doing wrong and fixing it, and see what they do right and continue. This is the opposites of market research.
Ya know to play devils advocate
and even though the way things are going shows the contrary, we dont ACTUALLY know if they do or do not do market research. what Kirby Said isnt necessarily the whole truth. (though likely it is)
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: So what does that say about people who play a game that is just a catalogue? Aside from astounding loyalty, that is...
Rick Priestley: what a dreamboat.
In all seriousness I've wondered why people stick with 40k knowing what kind of company GW is. Either they really don't care that they're being treated like clueless morons who buy anything, or they just figure they enjoy it so they'll deal. I used to chalk it up to just people not wanting to admit that they invested hundreds or even thousands of dollars in such a poor game so that's why people got defensive (because pointing it out makes them look stupid), but I really do see actual loyalty and fanaticism towards GW products, usually coupled with ignorant or outright hostility towards anything else.
GWombies.
I think it's unnecessarily disrespectful to shoehorn large swathes of people in to such small boxes.
People like it, people are defensive about things they like. I think brand loyalty is vastly over stated when it comes to GW because people see the defensiveness as fanatic GW loving when a lot of the time it's far more basic of people being defensive about something they enjoy.
Not that brand loyalty doesn't exist, I just think in the context of wargaming it is rather over stated. GW does still offer features that other wargames are lacking and if people are attracted to that I don't think we need to get overly offensive about it.
Wolfstan wrote: If GW stopped selling rules for WHFB & 40k they would be screwed, their "collectables" dream would die a death. Can you just imagine trying to flog a £100+ of plastic models to little Johnny's parents?
Parent: What does he do with them once he's finished sticking them together and painting them?
GW redshirt: Eh... nothing
Parent: Didn't you used to do rules so they can play against other armies?
GW Redshirt: Yep, but we decided that our models are too collectable for that sort of thing, so we stopped making rules.
Parent: So £100 for some figures, plus glue & paint, so that they can then just be stuck in a box or on a dusty shelf.
GW Redshirt: But they are "collectable"
Parent: Not when my 12 year old son has finished painting them they won't be!
So unfortunately GW you still need the rules, to justify the purchase to parents. Kill the rules and kill your sales. No parent is going to allow their child to spend £100+ some expensive Airfix kits.
Ha... totally not true. Parents take kids to the hobby shop all the time to buy a model to put together and paint and 'sit on a shelf'. In fact, that is how I got started as a kid. I would get to go to the hobby shop and buy a car or plane and spend a few weeks assembling it and painting it. The simple act of hobby time as a reward and constructive use of my time was what is valuable for parents. If you think parents actually attach 'value' to that they can game with the models later, you are insane as they don't care what a child does with a toy or a model or a video game. It is the value of the time it consumes which is on their plate. And sitting at home painting is good use of time for parents.
Actually, as a parent I might prefer models which sit on a shelf than having to have another place to chauffeur my kid to and to have him interact with adults with poor social skills. I would consider it a selling feature to not have a game attached. Hence why kids still like to build model planes, cars, tanks and gundams.
You're missing the point. A kid sitting down and building an Airfix kit with dad is one thing and is in fact a part of a lot of kids childhoods. However for a long time GW have pitched the this image of kids getting involved with the assembling & painting of their stuff, with the added benefit that it makes them sociable, due to the 'gaming' part of it. Remove that and it's just expensive Airfix, not the pocket money Airfix that father & son sat down and did together.
The problem is:
GW thinks that's their customer base.
But I see adults spending way more over greater periods of time.
Again, if GW did market research, they'd know who was buying and why.
You can claim that adult collectors buy more transformers too... but for every adult collector buying out 3 waves of 6 transformers for 10 years, you have hundreds of kids buying single 20$ transformers maybe once or twice. Someone who spends 1000s of dollars assumes their voice is more important and they should be catered to because clearly their investment means they are the core market right?
I think gamers grossly overestimate their value to the GW market and the best thing GW could do is be like Hasbro... find out where their sales come from and show how insignificant the vocal minority really is. When GW has been making bad rules and wholesale discounting gamers for 20 years now and is still in business, sometimes people need to take the hint that they simply are not the core market and are not very important.
Right now, GW claims to have that information from knowing how their models sell and gamers discount that as 'they couldn't possibly know, I must be worth more marketshare than that!' because it means they won't be catered to.
There is a market for people who buy models, assemble them, and sit them on shelves. It is a fairly large market and there are good number of companies who do nothing but that and are highly successful at it too. To pretend that model kits need games to drive sales is not always true and is not at all true for many manufacturers.
Voting with your wallet is a powerful tool. And it is even more powerful when others vote against you with their wallet.
It does seem a bit odd to just focus on the modelling/ collectable aspect.
I have recently returned to table top gaming, and am building an Ork army. Whilst I really enjoy the painting, the only reason I buy the figures, is to play them in the game.
I doubt very much that I would have bothered if there was no game involved, there seem to be many other models available that have caught my eye, and I would have preferred to paint.
The fluff, game and social aspect of table top gaming is what engaged me, and engages new blood. Without all that, what you have is a large amount of odd fantasy/ sci-fi miniatures.
Unfortunately, even as a recent re-entrant I can see the flaws in the game, and luckily I live near a vibrant gaming club that plays many types of game. If they decide to bin the game altogether, I will simply re-purpose whatever I have for a different game, and only buy whatever models capture my fancy to paint.
But without a game to motivate the purchase, I doubt I would buy much TBH.
It all comes back to the fact that GW's turned its fan base into collectors by virtue of weak rule support. I think alot of those "collectors" are simply players who wish and hope and pray GW eventually does something about the rules and makes a better game.
Rules sell models. They do. Rules sell models so well that many companies in this industry take a loss on their rules because the investment helps to sell more models.
When you are mass producing line troops, you aren't selling them to collectors. We know that GW's best selling products as of at least 2012 were troop choices. That's a fact. GW may be trying to transition away from that model, but that's the model that GW has found success with for decades.
North America is GW's biggest market now. North American buyers are gamers, or a huge proportion of them are. We have seen GW's revenue fall right along with declining tournament attendance in the US. Is that a massive years long coincidence? Anecdotally we know that GW sells well in areas where the game is being played on a regular basis in a thriving community. That's certainly true for other Wargame products as well.
We know that when the rules for a GW model are good, product sales are stronger. Ask anyone who owns a game store. You can also tell what is selling well by following the third party accessory market.
GW operates, or has operated, on a model very similar to the way most other table top miniatures game companies operate. At the end of the day, GW doesn't have a magic formula. GW isn't doing things fundamentally different from its competitors, and we know a whole lot about how GW's competitors operate. It is largely a matter of scale, maturity, and market penetration.
Games sell models. That's the formula. Talk to anyone that has a miniatures business. Why do you think Reaper developed Bones, or has a Savage Worlds miniatures license, or desperately wants to develop their own hot game systems. Why do you think GW designed Warhammer in the first place. GW was tired of selling Citadel miniatures for other peoples' games. There was more money to be had in developing their own game.
And finally, if GW was a collectible model business and not a tabe top games business, GW's product would be on the lower tier. Collectible model kits are generally cheaper and better than GW's offerings. GW doesn't sell to collectors.
GW sells to gamers. GW knows that. But in the short term, GW wants to maximize profit margin by selling splashy, limited availability models to old GAMERS who have become such fans of the company through playing the GAME for years that they are effectively collectors of GW products. That model has a limited lifespan, but the folks at GW don't really know what else to do. They know that a subset of their customers are very loyal and will buy high profit margin products. That's what they know. So the company is maximizing its attention on those customers because management isnt willing to invest the money or take the risks necessarry to find out what is going to help them bring in new customers.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I dunno about that. I think GW has a pretty clear idea of what sells, and how quickly. Those analytics are more important than surveys and focus groups.
Knowing why thos things sell is also useful, as it helps you to focus further releases. Otherwise you're just releasing random stuff in the hope it will be as popular as what you sold previously...
JohnHwangDD wrote: Given that GW closed their forums, it's also obvious that they know that Internet chatter does nothing to provide useful information about what people want.
Well, it's obvious that they think that. And they've said as much in the past.
Whether or not it's true, or something that they have concluded based on their own mismanagement of their relationship with their customers, that's another story.
Hell, I doubt we could get all of the posters in this thread to agree on what GW should do, and that is less than 20 people.
Of course you won't. No form of market research will result in everyone offering the same opinion. That doesn't mean that communicating with your customer base isn't still kind of helpful for determining what your customers want.
nkelsch wrote: Parents take kids to the hobby shop all the time to buy a model to put together and paint and 'sit on a shelf'
Sure, but those models cost $5-10, maybe $20 for a really nice kit, not $50 minimum. GW is going to have a hard time justifying their high prices when a parent asks "so what exactly does my kid get out of this that they can't get from the $10 tank at the local hobby shop?".
JohnHwangDD wrote: I dunno about that. I think GW has a pretty clear idea of what sells, and how quickly. Those analytics are more important than surveys and focus groups.
Knowing why thos things sell is also useful, as it helps you to focus further releases. Otherwise you're just releasing random stuff in the hope it will be as popular as what you sold previously...
And then there's knowing why things didn't sell. If you want to know why a potential customer didn't buy something you have to go outside your own sales data and do market research. But GW seems content to define their target market as "people who obsessively buy everything we produce" and has no problem throwing away all of the potential sales they could be making by expanding their market.
GW saying in court among the general public they see their customers as miniature collectors and not gamers isn't suprising to me. A gamer to the general public I think portrays a kid on a ps4 or pc or a variety of things that are not miniature table top games which are not mainstream. Also the specifics of the case likely had something to do with the way their arguments were presented which had to do with protecting their IP. Honestly miniature gaming as a hobby which includes modelling and painting is less like "gaming" for those that are in it purely to game imo.
Hell, I doubt we could get all of the posters in this thread to agree on what GW should do, and that is less than 20 people.
Of course you won't. No form of market research will result in everyone offering the same opinion. That doesn't mean that communicating with your customer base isn't still kind of helpful for determining what your customers want.
I don't know if you could get people to agree on how GW should do it, but I think you could get majority of people here to agree that the rules could be improved and that by improving the rules they'll help their sales. I realize that's a very broad stroke, but that's about as much guidance a company will get from market research.
JohnHwangDD wrote: GW has clearly read the market and moved to where they have less competition, and they have accelerated that move. Whether they admit to diong "Market Research," or not.
How's that working out for them?
Falling profits and decreasing revenue despite raising prices, cutting costs and accelerating releases.
If GW has really "read the market" I might diagnose GW with dyslexia.
PalmerC wrote: GW saying in court among the general public they see their customers as miniature collectors and not gamers isn't suprising to me. A gamer to the general public I think portrays a kid on a ps4 or pc or a variety of things that are not miniature table top games which are not mainstream. Also the specifics of the case likely had something to do with the way their arguments were presented which had to do with protecting their IP. Honestly miniature gaming as a hobby which includes modelling and painting is less like "gaming" for those that are in it purely to game imo.
You're saying it's just semantics; GW is trying to differentiate gamers who care about how a model looks vs other gamers who don't mind playing with a Shoe or a Hat token.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I dunno about that. I think GW has a pretty clear idea of what sells, and how quickly. Those analytics are more important than surveys and focus groups.
Knowing why thos things sell is also useful, as it helps you to focus further releases. Otherwise you're just releasing random stuff in the hope it will be as popular as what you sold previously...
And then there's knowing why things didn't sell. If you want to know why a potential customer didn't buy something you have to go outside your own sales data and do market research. But GW seems content to define their target market as "people who obsessively buy everything we produce" and has no problem throwing away all of the potential sales they could be making by expanding their market.
Exactly. Harry or Hastings recently stated that the reason we never got a 25th Anniversary edition of Blood Bowl was because Dreadfleet flopped. GW, in its wisdom, assumed that the failure of Dreadfleet meant that there was no market anymore for GW to do a big box game. Just let that sink in for a moment: the failure of a game nobody asked for cancelled the release of a game people have been begging for for years and 3rd party companies still produce models for.
PalmerC wrote: GW saying in court among the general public they see their customers as miniature collectors and not gamers isn't suprising to me. A gamer to the general public I think portrays a kid on a ps4 or pc or a variety of things that are not miniature table top games which are not mainstream. Also the specifics of the case likely had something to do with the way their arguments were presented which had to do with protecting their IP. Honestly miniature gaming as a hobby which includes modelling and painting is less like "gaming" for those that are in it purely to game imo.
This would be a more convincing argument if the "collectors, not gamers" attitude was limited to their arguments in that one court case. But instead we see it everywhere in GW, which makes it a lot harder to dismiss it as "GW just said what they had to say to win the case".
GW is just a clueless company plain and simple. I can't understand how a company can think it can survive with out knowing who or why people buy their product. Iam just dumbfounded by GW
I know this will upset some, but I don't give a flying fruit bat about the gaming side of GW, I am a pure collector, as long as I can get my stuff, I am a happy chappy.
It is not like gamers didn't know this was the regime, I mean, didn't the elimination of gaming tables at Gamesday events and just a hobby promotion and all that gave fair warning to gamers that GW was restructuring itself towards the hobby side it.
Golden Daemon comps are promoted heavily, but who knows the GW gaming world champion, there isn't one, when was the last time GW promoted a world tournament, or promoted national championships and featured them in White Dwarf.
The beauty of being a collector is that I can create my own armies to any standard I want.
You were warned years ago, some failed to cotton on.
I couldn't tell you who won GD last year either, you're likely to know if you're interested, I'm not, so I've no idea.
But why on earth are you creating "armies" if you're a collector? Armies is a gaming concept, it has no place in the future you're espousing.
But, frankly, anyone telling people who have bought product from Games Workshop that they shouldn't be disappointed in the lack of game has a pretty thin argument whatever way you look at it.
Azreal13 wrote: I couldn't tell you who won GD last year either, you're likely to know if you're interested, I'm not, so I've no idea.
But why on earth are you creating "armies" if you're a collector? Armies is a gaming concept, it has no place in the future you're espousing.
But, frankly, anyone telling people who have bought product from Games Workshop that they shouldn't be disappointed in the lack of game has a pretty thin argument whatever way you look at it.
What I mean is that I include plasma cannons/multi-meltas into my Chaos Space Marines Army, anything the Space Marines have, so does my Chaos army get.
Should have made myself clearer. Your assumption about the armies themselves as a gaming concept, may be well and true, but I can do exactly whatever I want with my plastic crack, I have a 40,000 point Chaos Space Marine Army, it will eventually reach 100,000 points.
Give you an example.
I am going to make a unit of Har Ganarth (I think that's correct) Dark Elves unit into a unit of Emperor's Children Paletine Blades to be a retinue for Lucius the Eternal, my Army, i'll do what I want, easy peasy.
Achaylus72 wrote: I know this will upset some, but I don't give a flying fruit bat about the gaming side of GW, I am a pure collector, as long as I can get my stuff, I am a happy chappy.
Why would that upset people?
You're a long way from being the only person who is in it for the models rather than the game. The point being made is just that GW think that collectors are the core of their market... and many of GW's customers disagree.
I mean, didn't the elimination of gaming tables at Gamesday events and just a hobby promotion and all that gave fair warning to gamers that GW was restructuring itself towards the hobby side it.
If those gaming tables had been replaced by, say, painting tables, then maybe. As it is, Games Day in its current form doesn't promote the 'hobby'... it just promotes sales.
Golden Daemon comps are promoted heavily, but who knows the GW gaming world champion, there isn't one, when was the last time GW promoted a world tournament, or promoted national championships and featured them in White Dwarf.
Back when GW ran their own tournaments, they were also promoted heavily.
I couldn't tell you who won what at Warhammer World... but I also couldn't tell you who won what in any of the recent Golden Demons.
The beauty of being a collector is that I can create my own armies to any standard I want.
What would be stopping you from doing that as a gamer?
PalmerC wrote: GW saying in court among the general public they see their customers as miniature collectors and not gamers isn't suprising to me. A gamer to the general public I think portrays a kid on a ps4 or pc or a variety of things that are not miniature table top games which are not mainstream. Also the specifics of the case likely had something to do with the way their arguments were presented which had to do with protecting their IP. Honestly miniature gaming as a hobby which includes modelling and painting is less like "gaming" for those that are in it purely to game imo.
This would be a more convincing argument if the "collectors, not gamers" attitude was limited to their arguments in that one court case. But instead we see it everywhere in GW, which makes it a lot harder to dismiss it as "GW just said what they had to say to win the case".
LOL. GW had the local Chicago battle bunker bring over a fully modeled table and flew in a painted and assembled Dark Vengeance set that was set up in the middle of the courtroom the entire trial. GW looked nerdy next to the English Lit PhD candidate on the jury. During his opening statement GW's lawyer even showed some terrible 40K video that I couldn't identify that made me feel embarrassed for sitting there in the same room.
Azreal13 wrote: I couldn't tell you who won GD last year either, you're likely to know if you're interested, I'm not, so I've no idea.
But why on earth are you creating "armies" if you're a collector? Armies is a gaming concept, it has no place in the future you're espousing.
But, frankly, anyone telling people who have bought product from Games Workshop that they shouldn't be disappointed in the lack of game has a pretty thin argument whatever way you look at it.
What I mean is that I include plasma cannons/multi-meltas into my Chaos Space Marines Army, anything the Space Marines have, so does my Chaos army get.
Should have made myself clearer. Your assumption about the armies themselves as a gaming concept, may be well and true, but I can do exactly whatever I want with my plastic crack, I have a 40,000 point Chaos Space Marine Army, it will eventually reach 100,000 points.
Give you an example.
I am going to make a unit of Har Ganarth (I think that's correct) Dark Elves unit into a unit of Emperor's Children Paletine Blades to be a retinue for Lucius the Eternal, my Army, i'll do what I want, easy peasy.
I play (emphasis on that word) a Chaos Daemons army with a bundle of counts as and converted minis.
I am currently working on a 40KCSM army in Emperor's Children Legion livery with a mix of CSM, SM and 30K FW pieces as I'm setting them immediately post Scouring, so they're not too Chaosified yet.
Other than a nod to WYSIWYG, I fail to see the distinction?
Sorry, but you don't have the freedom you think you have because you're not a gamer, you just like converting. If you were determined to, you could find a legal way to represent nearly anything in game.
Azreal13 wrote: I couldn't tell you who won GD last year either, you're likely to know if you're interested, I'm not, so I've no idea.
But why on earth are you creating "armies" if you're a collector? Armies is a gaming concept, it has no place in the future you're espousing.
But, frankly, anyone telling people who have bought product from Games Workshop that they shouldn't be disappointed in the lack of game has a pretty thin argument whatever way you look at it.
What I mean is that I include plasma cannons/multi-meltas into my Chaos Space Marines Army, anything the Space Marines have, so does my Chaos army get.
Should have made myself clearer. Your assumption about the armies themselves as a gaming concept, may be well and true, but I can do exactly whatever I want with my plastic crack, I have a 40,000 point Chaos Space Marine Army, it will eventually reach 100,000 points.
Give you an example.
I am going to make a unit of Har Ganarth (I think that's correct) Dark Elves unit into a unit of Emperor's Children Paletine Blades to be a retinue for Lucius the Eternal, my Army, i'll do what I want, easy peasy.
I play (emphasis on that word) a Chaos Daemons army with a bundle of counts as and converted minis.
I am currently working on a 40KCSM army in Emperor's Children Legion livery with a mix of CSM, SM and 30K FW pieces as I'm setting them immediately post Scouring, so they're not too Chaosified yet.
Other than a nod to WYSIWYG, I fail to see the distinction?
Sorry, but you don't have the freedom you think you have because you're not a gamer, you just like converting. If you were determined to, you could find a legal way to represent nearly anything in game.
But I don't game, period. And unless I have a GW lawyer standing over me at my hobby table, I don't jack crap, i'll convert anything I want, period. I will tell you why, I sustained a pretty bad head injury a while back, and I can't game, I lose focus, the rules end up confusing me and I doesn't look good when I have someone helping me stay focus, it is like my opponent is playing two people rather than one, it is not fair to them.
But I get the impression that you are just a gamer and not a collector, and nothing I say will sway you to consider anything other than being a pure player is the BE ALL, END ALL way to go.
But I do game, and I have all the same freedoms you do, it's great that you enjoy what you do, but you don't have some extra licence to be creative, you just don't have to be creative when it comes to finding rules to represent your creations on the tabletop.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm also a painter and modeller before a gamer, so your impression is false.
As is the idea that a "collector" is in anyway a thing, we're all collectors by definition, it's just some of us play a game with our collections and some don't.
Achaylus72 wrote: But I don't game, period. And unless I have a GW lawyer standing over me at my hobby table, I don't jack crap, i'll convert anything I want, period. I will tell you why, I sustained a pretty bad head injury a while back, and I can't game, I lose focus, the rules end up confusing me and I doesn't look good when I have someone helping me stay focus, it is like my opponent is playing two people rather than one, it is not fair to them.
But I get the impression that you are just a gamer and not a collector, and nothing I say will sway you to consider anything other than being a pure player is the BE ALL, END ALL way to go.
You also seem to have the impression that he's telling you that you're doing it wrong.
He's not.
It's perfectly acceptable for someone to only be interested in one aspect of the hobby. Some of the painters that have inspired me the most over my years in this hobby are people who don't actually play the games, they just paint miniatures that they like. I've also known at least a couple of guys who rarely even assembled anything... they just kept buying models that they liked for the sake of having them. And then there's the other end of the spectrum, with people who play the game, but pay other people to assemble and paint their models because they have no interest in doing it themselves.
None of those people are doing anything wrong... they're just following the parts of the hobby that they enjoy.
The point being made to you is simply that the things that you feel are opened up to you because you collect and don't game would actually still be available to you as a gamer. Not that you have to game... just that wanting to build this unit a certain way isn't automatically out of the question if you want to game with it.
bodazoka wrote: I would just like to add that people who complain GW doesn't take there game design seriously are delusional..
Rick left in 2010, mid way through 5th edition...
So, he left during the edition that most people seem to consider was the closest 40K has gotten to being balanced, and prior to two editions in short order that have made the game less and less playable?
Achaylus72 wrote: But I don't game, period. And unless I have a GW lawyer standing over me at my hobby table, I don't jack crap, i'll convert anything I want, period. I will tell you why, I sustained a pretty bad head injury a while back, and I can't game, I lose focus, the rules end up confusing me and I doesn't look good when I have someone helping me stay focus, it is like my opponent is playing two people rather than one, it is not fair to them.
But I get the impression that you are just a gamer and not a collector, and nothing I say will sway you to consider anything other than being a pure player is the BE ALL, END ALL way to go.
You also seem to have the impression that he's telling you that you're doing it wrong.
He's not.
It's perfectly acceptable for someone to only be interested in one aspect of the hobby. Some of the painters that have inspired me the most over my years in this hobby are people who don't actually play the games, they just paint miniatures that they like. I've also known at least a couple of guys who rarely even assembled anything... they just kept buying models that they liked for the sake of having them. And then there's the other end of the spectrum, with people who play the game, but pay other people to assemble and paint their models because they have no interest in doing it themselves.
None of those people are doing anything wrong... they're just following the parts of the hobby that they enjoy.
The point being made to you is simply that the things that you feel are opened up to you because you collect and don't game would actually still be available to you as a gamer. Not that you have to game... just that wanting to build this unit a certain way isn't automatically out of the question if you want to game with it.
Achaylus72 wrote: You were warned years ago, some failed to cotton on.
Having advance warning doesn't change the fact that it's incredibly stupid for GW to throw away large sections of its potential market in exchange for nothing.
JohnHwangDD wrote: GW has clearly read the market and moved to where they have less competition, and they have accelerated that move. Whether they admit to diong "Market Research," or not.
How's that working out for them?
Falling profits and decreasing revenue despite raising prices, cutting costs and accelerating releases.
If GW has really "read the market" I might diagnose GW with dyslexia.
We just don't understand their cunning plan! our new CEO Baldrick!
Now to think of it lots in Black Adder makes me think on how GW's strategy is done.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I dunno about that. I think GW has a pretty clear idea of what sells, and how quickly. Those analytics are more important than surveys and focus groups.
Knowing why thos things sell is also useful, as it helps you to focus further releases. Otherwise you're just releasing random stuff in the hope it will be as popular as what you sold previously...
And then there's knowing why things didn't sell. If you want to know why a potential customer didn't buy something you have to go outside your own sales data and do market research. But GW seems content to define their target market as "people who obsessively buy everything we produce" and has no problem throwing away all of the potential sales they could be making by expanding their market.
Exactly. Harry or Hastings recently stated that the reason we never got a 25th Anniversary edition of Blood Bowl was because Dreadfleet flopped. GW, in its wisdom, assumed that the failure of Dreadfleet meant that there was no market anymore for GW to do a big box game. Just let that sink in for a moment: the failure of a game nobody asked for cancelled the release of a game people have been begging for for years and 3rd party companies still produce models for.
Its enough to make you want to kickstart hiring a firm to do market research for GW.... though they'd still probably ignore it.
I really wonder if a better GW ruleset would really grow the game, holding all other things (prices and price of army) equal. GW may realize that their poor rule set is perfectly acceptable, that additional armies is more profitable than a better balanced rule system. Given a sufficiently short term orientated view, say 2 - 4 years, they may very well be correct.
For the gamer, this is a problem because you need long term plans from the company to support your expensive purchases, but for a short term orientated company, this may be the right decision.
I mean, if rule systems really drove games, there would be a dozens of games which should have launched into greater prominence. From my point of view, the aesthetic of GW is vastly superior to almost any other 28mm game. (Not to say that I have any, but with sufficient funds, time, etc. etc) So I would be insensitive to the gameplay, or I could construct a bunch of sufficient rules, because the units are sufficiently pretty. GW may think along similar lines and, given the success of 30K, GW isn't totally wrong.
What makes a game successful, is a peculiar alchemy, it is neither elegant rules, awesome models or inspiring fluff (if it were just fluff, there'd be a massively successful Star Wars mini game.)
Superiority in one will help support inferiority in another, and for 40K since time immemorial, the models and the fluff carried the game.
The trouble is, the game has degraded to a point where the models and fluff can't carry it anymore for what appears to be an increasing number of players.
So yes, better rules would at least help stop the game contracting, which can then be used as a basis to start growing again.
DrRansom wrote: I really wonder if a better GW ruleset would really grow the game, holding all other things (prices and price of army) equal.
All of the people who quite playing because they disliked the mess that we were handed with 6th and 7th edition would say that yes, it most certainly would.
Here's the thing - A poorly-written ruleset sells fine to those who don't much care about how functional the rules are, and not so well to those who want a decent ruleset.
A well-written ruleset sells just as well to those who don't much care about how functional the rules are... but also sells to that second group.
What it comes down to in the end is whether the extra sales to that second group would be significant enough to balance out the extra expense of crafting a better ruleset.
GW are the only ones in a position to answer that question with any degree of certainty... but that answer would rely on market research which they quite proudly tell the world they don't do.
I'm also a painter and modeller before a gamer, so your impression is false.
As is the idea that a "collector" is in anyway a thing, we're all collectors by definition, it's just some of us play a game with our collections and some don't.
I agree with this. Although pure gamers can enjoy tabletop by purchasing a painted army it's really unnecessary unless you like miniatures and miniature gaming compared to card board chits etc. I think the general public doesn't get this hobby right off the bat and understandably so. That's why I don't have a problem with GW saying things in court as they said them.
So, he left during the edition that most people seem to consider was the closest 40K has gotten to being balanced, and prior to two editions in short order that have made the game less and less playable?
Your point is....?.
My point is how the hell would he know the inner workings at board level of the place? I thought we all assume GW is a closed door corporation?
On a side note people romanticise 5th edition like crazy.. and your opinion is that the game is less playable not mine.
insaniak wrote: So around about when 6th edition was in the design process...
Ok, I didn't realize RP doesn't work for the company any longer. So my woe is gone, I really did feel bad, it didn't make sense to me that he could speak about the company he works for with out repercussions. So anyway, moving on... This is just more GAK from a has been!!!
One of my theories is that you and my definition of collector isn't the same as GWs definition.
GWs definition is probably "teen who buys a whole load of toys, but never gets round to assembling them in the 2 years before he discovers girls and abandons warhammer entirely"
Right now, GW claims to have that information from knowing how their models sell and gamers discount that as 'they couldn't possibly know, I must be worth more marketshare than that!' because it means they won't be catered to.
There is no way GW can tell how their models sell or why. They aren't tracking individuals purchasing habits (except on the store but they threw most of that away), they can only get transaction based reports - Customer 6455875998 bought 2 tactical squads and a dreadnaught, customer 996865457 bought a Blood Angels Codex and some glue, with no way to tell if they are the same person, if they were bought to model or game with, or if they were even for the purchaser.
Some of the staff might notice trends from familiar faces, but I'd be surprised if that's passed up to the decision makers properly.
GW knows exactly what sells, but have almost no idea why.
I'm not name calling, he is devaluing a hobby, from a company he "has" worked for in the past. He is not current with what they are doing inside the company, he doesn't go to production meetings any longer, he is an outsider.
He works for another company in a similar market correct? So really he is being unprofessional in defaming GW.
Azreal13 wrote: But why on earth are you creating "armies" if you're a collector? Armies is a gaming concept, it has no place in the future you're espousing.
Because a themed army looks much better in a display than a few random units. I'm putting together some armies I'll probably never game with (I'll base and organize them so that I can use in game though), because I think an array of 200 Spartans will look so much better than a unit of 24.
Kelly502 wrote: I'm not name calling, he is devaluing a hobby, from a company he "has" worked for in the past. He is not current with what they are doing inside the company, he doesn't go to production meetings any longer, he is an outsider.
He works for another company in a similar market correct? So really he is being unprofessional in defaming GW.
Should probably look up "defamation". You don't need to work for gw to see the direction they are going. We are all just troublesome gamers, best to replace us with collectors that never complain
DrRansom wrote: I really wonder if a better GW ruleset would really grow the game, holding all other things (prices and price of army) equal.
All of the people who quite playing because they disliked the mess that we were handed with 6th and 7th edition would say that yes, it most certainly would.
Here's the thing - A poorly-written ruleset sells fine to those who don't much care about how functional the rules are, and not so well to those who want a decent ruleset.
A well-written ruleset sells just as well to those who don't much care about how functional the rules are... but also sells to that second group.
What it comes down to in the end is whether the extra sales to that second group would be significant enough to balance out the extra expense of crafting a better ruleset.
GW are the only ones in a position to answer that question with any degree of certainty... but that answer would rely on market research which they quite proudly tell the world they don't do.
Very much this; a good ruleset doesn't hurt anyone (except from the people who associate balance/clarity with WAAC), whilst a bad ruleset hurts those that value the rules. For instance I'd love to play 40K more and get back into WHF, but I just can't face the constant rules checking and guesswork. My local gaming group has moved towards FoW for it's serious gaming and I'm finding that much better to play, so my FoW collection is growing and getting use whilst my 40K is rotting in the back of a cupboard somewhere.
Kelly502 wrote: Ok, I didn't realize RP doesn't work for the company any longer. So my woe is gone, I really did feel bad, it didn't make sense to me that he could speak about the company he works for with out repercussions. So anyway, moving on... This is just more GAK from a has been!!!
He's doing pretty well for himself now; he's been writing some pretty popular games, and seems to have a fairly regular guest spot in some of the magazines (WS&S?).
I don't see how he's devaluing the GW hobby either; he's not said anything we haven't already suspected. And as said he's not totally biased - apparently he still owns stock and his wife works for them, as well as many of his friends (though i suspect most of them have left as well by now).
Well, I'm not current in the politics so it's best I bow out. I enjoy the current edition it sure beats HeroHammer, and the figures and models are the best they have ever produced. The figures are just fine for war gaming, if he prefers itty bitty lead figures vs. the current Blood Angle model then that's what he prefers for war gaming. I like my giant tanks, my big BA figures etc etc...Everyone is entitled to opinions. Also I see the word suspected a lot here, so again nothing really factual.
Kelly502 wrote: Ok, I didn't realize RP doesn't work for the company any longer. So my woe is gone, I really did feel bad, it didn't make sense to me that he could speak about the company he works for with out repercussions. So anyway, moving on... This is just more GAK from a has been!!!
I actually find it upsetting that someone could write something like this, I can only assume you're not aware of Rick Priestly's importance to the history of GW and 40K.
The man is the first name you read in Rogue Trader, he was a big part of the creation of Space Marines, of Orks, Eldar, 'The Imperium' and everything else that you hold so dear about the game you play. Without him, the game of 40k we know it wouldn't exist, so in other words you should have some bloody respect!
He left GW as he was no longer left with anything to create and design, which one can hardly blame him considering the circumstances, and it relates to his comment of the types of design people now working for the company; They are no longer 'creating', the 'Games Workshop' element of the company has been dead for a decade, instead it's a regurgitation of the work that has come before, of re-writes and copy-pastes, and the occasional bit of shoe-horning in a new character or unit to sell a new plastic kit. I don't think you to read it from Rick to see that it is the case as it's plainly obvious to anyone who has watched this transformation over the past twenty years.
Kelly502 wrote: I'm not name calling, he is devaluing a hobby, from a company he "has" worked for in the past. He is not current with what they are doing inside the company, he doesn't go to production meetings any longer, he is an outsider.
He works for another company in a similar market correct? So really he is being unprofessional in defaming GW.
And why is that please? If something is going so very wrong in your company that you leave because of it, you are damn well allowed to say why you did so. That's got nothing to do with being unprofessional. It's one thing if you got fired for lazyness and calling your ex-boss a slavedriving jerk or whatever but it's a different story if you left your company after a damn long time because you were not behind the descisions of the new management.
angelofvengeance wrote: I'm not overly familiar with FFG but rules writing wise what are they like?
I've found them to be pretty tight. They aren't perfect, but they are rules writers first and foremost, who have found themselves with a massive hit minatures game.
Tokens. Tokens as far as the eye can see... Then there's the cards. Sooooo many cards.
Saying that, they produce some frankly beautiful stuff and everything feels top quality.
Kelly502 wrote: I'm not name calling, he is devaluing a hobby, from a company he "has" worked for in the past. He is not current with what they are doing inside the company, he doesn't go to production meetings any longer, he is an outsider.
He works for another company in a similar market correct? So really he is being unprofessional in defaming GW.
And why is that please? If something is going so very wrong in your company that you leave because of it, you are damn well allowed to say why you did so. That's got nothing to do with being unprofessional. It's one thing if you got fired for lazyness and calling your ex-boss a slavedriving jerk or whatever but it's a different story if you left your company after a damn long time because you were not behind the descisions of the new management.
Do we know exactly why he left? That would allow us to know what combination of sour grapes or righteous anger drives his statements.
What would be really impressive from such a man, lauded as he is on this thread, would be to launch independent rules for a futuristic space battle game, including stats and points for various factions, including genetically-enhanced humans, green football hooligans, space elves and vicious xenomorphs.
One way to show things can be done better, is to do it. I'd certainly try out a new rulebook - and I do think the LOTR ruleset is superior to the current 40k. (Not at all sure that 5th was all that great though, nostalgia tends to vary according to what faction you play)
Kelly502 wrote: I'm not name calling, he is devaluing a hobby, from a company he "has" worked for in the past. He is not current with what they are doing inside the company, he doesn't go to production meetings any longer, he is an outsider.
He works for another company in a similar market correct? So really he is being unprofessional in defaming GW.
It's his opinion, and I can't see how it's "defaming" in the slightest.
Are you that intolerant to criticism aimed at what you like?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hivefleet Oblivion wrote: What would be really impressive from such a man, lauded as he is on this thread, would be to launch independent rules for a futuristic space battle game, including stats and points for various factions, including genetically-enhanced humans, green football hooligans, space elves and vicious xenomorphs.
One way to show things can be done better, is to do it. I'd certainly try out a new rulebook - and I do think the LOTR ruleset is superior to the current 40k. (Not at all sure that 5th was all that great though, nostalgia tends to vary according to what faction you play)
angelofvengeance wrote: I'm not overly familiar with FFG but rules writing wise what are they like?
I've found them to be pretty tight. They aren't perfect, but they are rules writers first and foremost, who have found themselves with a massive hit minatures game.
Tokens. Tokens as far as the eye can see... Then there's the cards. Sooooo many cards.
Saying that, they produce some frankly beautiful stuff and everything feels top quality.
FFG has discovered a successful formula of selling customers lots of stuff. It's very much a little niche of theirs. When you buy a FFG product you get loads of stuff.
Without coming down one way or another on it, I think FFG has discovered that there is a good market for products that follow such a formula.
I would wish I could say I am in disbelief hearing the gamers vs collectors debate but I her it so many decades I can't be surprised by it.
The so called "WAAC" crowd are ultimately right, you pay for the rules and you pay for the miniatures, ultimately its the companies responsibility to provide a well written balanced game they are not exploiting the fun for everybody else, they play the game, I would not expect somebody to not promote a pawn to a queen in chess because it would be powerful, I would expect from a company that demands my money to deliver a sound product, for whatever reasons players got criminalized instead of demanding from the company to deliver a sound product.
Something that even without the widespread use of the internet was done in second edition and the game that was at the end days of the edition had little to no resemblance to the game that started.
Now I feel, Rick Priestly, has quite a deep knowledge on how the company works, its his home made WW2 rules for 15mm you all play as 40k (notice the difference in scale) when the accounting department demanded a few months before 3rd edition publication to the studio to scrap their "2nd edition remastered" work they had done and make a game system that required twice as much models to play, its he who tried to fight (and fail) the accounting department who decided that the lords blister for warmaster should be cut because they do not sell as much as the regiment blisters (Do they even know what products they sell?) and ultimately he who decided to leave because he could not stand to be in a company were the design studio is really non existent and must obey the directions of the accounting department (working together I guess is an idea unheard of in GW).
Collectors will collect models I guess, not sure why they would play with them, definitely they will not do so in such large quantities that are demanded by a wargame (how many tactical marines can one build without feeling they are enough? worse termagaunts?) definitely not in the quantities GWs manufacturing infrastructure is set to manufacture and their infrastructure is set to sell, admitting they make models for collectors shows a gross misunderstanding of who they are and what they do and also to who they sell to.
Kelly502 wrote: I'm not name calling, he is devaluing a hobby, from a company he "has" worked for in the past. He is not current with what they are doing inside the company, he doesn't go to production meetings any longer, he is an outsider.
He works for another company in a similar market correct? So really he is being unprofessional in defaming GW.
I can't believe that Rick, the man who essentially created the universe that you all love, has been denigrated at all in this thread!
Not only is he responsible for the creation of many of the core elements of 40k, he is also a thouroughly nice chap who always takes the time to talk to people at games shows and come to tournaments.
Boo. Boo on you.
So in this topic we've got folk defending Alan Merrett's clangers; folk ripping into Rick Priestly (Rick Priestly) for repeating what was painfully apparent, in the context of why he lost his job; and folk claiming that the captain-morgan tonka-tank hobbit-guardsman giant-meatheads-clad-in-multicoloured-drainage-pipes-rolled-in-skullz-and-piloting-shoeboxes aesthetic is superior to all those other games that they never gave a second glance.
JohnHwangDD wrote: GW did market research, and has adapted. You just don't like the direction that they are going, but GW is doing rational things - that much is obvious.
Rationality does nt necessarily mean Reasonable.
All that "rational" means is that they are following the rules dictated by a set of assumptions.
It does not mean that the assumptions themselves are correct.
Kelly502 wrote: I'm not name calling, he is devaluing a hobby, from a company he "has" worked for in the past. He is not current with what they are doing inside the company, he doesn't go to production meetings any longer, he is an outsider.
He works for another company in a similar market correct? So really he is being unprofessional in defaming GW.
I can't believe that Rick, the man who essentially created the universe that you all love, has been denigrated at all in this thread!
Not only is he responsible for the creation of many of the core elements of 40k, he is also a thouroughly nice chap who always takes the time to talk to people at games shows and come to tournaments.
Boo. Boo on you.
Can't exalt that enough. Rick is a terribly nice guy. One of the big turning points for me with respect to GW was when I spoke to Rick for the first time. My immediate reaction was that there must be something fundamentally wrong with GW if they managed to lose a guy like this.
I could have massively misjudged him, but I don't believe Rick Priestly is the kind of person to complain or have a cross word to say about someone. He's honestly a very nice person.
If I was in Rick's shoes, I have a hard time believing I wouldn't be pissed off and jaded. I'd probably have tons of cross words to say.
Rick Priestly is not my favorite game designer and I'm not a terribly huge fan of 40K (rules or fluff), but I respect Rick for his contributions to the industry and above all I respect him as a person.
Vermis wrote: So in this topic we've got folk defending Alan Merrett's clangers; folk ripping into Rick Priestly (Rick Priestly) for repeating what was painfully apparent, in the context of why he lost his job; and folk claiming that the captain-morgan tonka-tank hobbit-guardsman giant-meatheads-clad-in-multicoloured-drainage-pipes-rolled-in-skullz-and-piloting-shoeboxes aesthetic is superior to all those other games that they never gave a second glance.
And people say GWombies aren't a thing.
They may be a thing, opinions apparently aren't, and wrong ones deserve to be mocked. Drop the attitude and name-calling.
But that's why so many other games are gaining popularity.
Truth there for my area
Batman.....Massively fun even if Killer Croc keeps beating the crap out of me.
Infinity.....gaining more and more popularity by the week
Warmahordes just gained 5 new players
Kelly502 wrote: I'm not name calling, he is devaluing a hobby, from a company he "has" worked for in the past. He is not current with what they are doing inside the company, he doesn't go to production meetings any longer, he is an outsider.
He works for another company in a similar market correct? So really he is being unprofessional in defaming GW.
I can't believe that Rick, the man who essentially created the universe that you all love, has been denigrated at all in this thread!
Not only is he responsible for the creation of many of the core elements of 40k, he is also a thouroughly nice chap who always takes the time to talk to people at games shows and come to tournaments.
Boo. Boo on you.
This.
But then again, referring to Games Workshop products as "a hobby" probably tells you all you need to know.
weeble1000 wrote: Rules sell models. They do. Rules sell models so well that many companies in this industry take a loss on their rules because the investment helps to sell more models.
When you are mass producing line troops, you aren't selling them to collectors. We know that GW's best selling products as of at least 2012 were troop choices. That's a fact. GW may be trying to transition away from that model, but that's the model that GW has found success with for decades.
North America is GW's biggest market now. North American buyers are gamers, or a huge proportion of them are. We have seen GW's revenue fall right along with declining tournament attendance in the US. Is that a massive years long coincidence? Anecdotally we know that GW sells well in areas where the game is being played on a regular basis in a thriving community. That's certainly true for other Wargame products as well.
We know that when the rules for a GW model are good, product sales are stronger. Ask anyone who owns a game store. You can also tell what is selling well by following the third party accessory market.
GW operates, or has operated, on a model very similar to the way most other table top miniatures game companies operate. At the end of the day, GW doesn't have a magic formula. GW isn't doing things fundamentally different from its competitors, and we know a whole lot about how GW's competitors operate. It is largely a matter of scale, maturity, and market penetration.
Games sell models. That's the formula. Talk to anyone that has a miniatures business. Why do you think Reaper developed Bones, or has a Savage Worlds miniatures license, or desperately wants to develop their own hot game systems. Why do you think GW designed Warhammer in the first place. GW was tired of selling Citadel miniatures for other peoples' games. There was more money to be had in developing their own game.
And finally, if GW was a collectible model business and not a tabe top games business, GW's product would be on the lower tier. Collectible model kits are generally cheaper and better than GW's offerings. GW doesn't sell to collectors.
GW sells to gamers. GW knows that. But in the short term, GW wants to maximize profit margin by selling splashy, limited availability models to old GAMERS who have become such fans of the company through playing the GAME for years that they are effectively collectors of GW products. That model has a limited lifespan, but the folks at GW don't really know what else to do. They know that a subset of their customers are very loyal and will buy high profit margin products. That's what they know. So the company is maximizing its attention on those customers because management isnt willing to invest the money or take the risks necessarry to find out what is going to help them bring in new customers.
Hell, I hate to admit it - but Kings of War has been helping to sellGW models in my area - we have a High Elf player that is using GW models for his Elf army, because he doesn't much like the Mantic Elves. (I like the Mantic Elves just fine, but use them as something different - the GW and Reaper elves form the basis for my own elven forces.)
He has been buying the starter sets for Warhammer, and tossing the rules.
Another is getting GW Orcs and Goblins....
GW sales are being spurred by another company's rules!
Kelly502 wrote: I'm not name calling, he is devaluing a hobby, from a company he "has" worked for in the past. He is not current with what they are doing inside the company, he doesn't go to production meetings any longer, he is an outsider.
He works for another company in a similar market correct? So really he is being unprofessional in defaming GW.
And why is that please? If something is going so very wrong in your company that you leave because of it, you are damn well allowed to say why you did so. That's got nothing to do with being unprofessional. It's one thing if you got fired for lazyness and calling your ex-boss a slavedriving jerk or whatever but it's a different story if you left your company after a damn long time because you were not behind the descisions of the new management.
Do we know exactly why he left? That would allow us to know what combination of sour grapes or righteous anger drives his statements.
I heard that he had been promoted to a point that he essentially had very little work to do. After Warhammer historicals was closed, his creative input on projects was next to none, and so at that point he was moved on to new pastures where he could do what he wanted to do.
For what it's worth, from what I have heard I don't think think there was any bad blood, other than it being the end of an era and so important a person to the formation of that company leaving it. Like Ronnie Renton who went on to form Mantic (and was supposedly 'the most liked man in Lenton'), I think generally the creative types within all these companies get on well as there is still a limited circle of them based around Nottingham and they still know each other. Especially when so many of them came from GW initially, or even go back there.
It's at the 'corporate' level, of the company men and corporate schills (as well, funnily enough, the hardcore fans who look only at the company logo, and not the names behind it that actually created the thing) that there is any antagonism. Which, frankly I find very ugly considering what a small industry this is, and usually how personable and friendly it can be.
angelofvengeance wrote: I'm not overly familiar with FFG but rules writing wise what are they like?
I've found them to be pretty tight. They aren't perfect, but they are rules writers first and foremost, who have found themselves with a massive hit minatures game.
Tokens. Tokens as far as the eye can see... Then there's the cards. Sooooo many cards.
Saying that, they produce some frankly beautiful stuff and everything feels top quality.
They also tend to throw in wonky dice instead of standard d6s... Ugh. FFG write rulesets for the type if people who play wargames IMO; the type if person who will study a rulebook for days to play a two hour game. I can never get people to pull out and plop down most of their games due to the cards and tokens and various other pieces.
So basically perfect for Warhammer.
Automatically Appended Next Post: What I mean is not an attack on a type if person, just to be clear. I mean that wargamers live to dissect a set of rules, and FFG packs boxes full of stuff to dissect.
Kelly502 wrote: Ok, I didn't realize RP doesn't work for the company any longer. So my woe is gone, I really did feel bad, it didn't make sense to me that he could speak about the company he works for with out repercussions. So anyway, moving on... This is just more GAK from a has been!!!
You dont know what you're talking about.
Other's have mentioned his still impressive ties both financially and personally to GW and many of it's employees.
As for being a "has been" - Mr. Priestley has probably produced more since leaving GW than he has in years. From writing Hail Ceaser, Black Powder, and Gates of Antares, to being on the dev team for Bolt Action, as well as the many supplements to these games, or being a board member and President of The Society of Ancients, he is hardly a "has been."
The problem is:
GW thinks that's their customer base.
But I see adults spending way more over greater periods of time.
Again, if GW did market research, they'd know who was buying and why.
You can claim that adult collectors buy more transformers too... but for every adult collector buying out 3 waves of 6 transformers for 10 years, you have hundreds of kids buying single 20$ transformers maybe once or twice. Someone who spends 1000s of dollars assumes their voice is more important and they should be catered to because clearly their investment means they are the core market right?
I think gamers grossly overestimate their value to the GW market and the best thing GW could do is be like Hasbro... find out where their sales come from and show how insignificant the vocal minority really is. When GW has been making bad rules and wholesale discounting gamers for 20 years now and is still in business, sometimes people need to take the hint that they simply are not the core market and are not very important.
I'm just curious about this, though my comment is tangential to what I'm quoting.
In the USA, at least, how large is the child gaming purchase power at your local area?
At the LGSs in metro Atlanta 10 years ago, there were lots of kids (by kids, I mean high-school age or lower) that played 40K. Today, I don't see anywhere near as many. In fact, I can't remember the last time I saw a person of obvious teen-age years playing 40K at either of the LGS I go to. This is something I haven't really thought about until reading this thread.
How is it in your areas? Do you still see lots of school-age kids coming in and playing/buying 40K stuff?
Kelly502 wrote: Ok, I didn't realize RP doesn't work for the company any longer. So my woe is gone, I really did feel bad, it didn't make sense to me that he could speak about the company he works for with out repercussions. So anyway, moving on... This is just more GAK from a has been!!!
You really wrote that?
As many have said He was one of the Original Creators of Warhammer... WOW, Just WOW.
I might not have liked what Gav Thorpe did to Warhammer and 40K in General but insulting him is just wrong. I don't see why you had to Insult that gentle-person.
Kelly502 wrote: Ok, I didn't realize RP doesn't work for the company any longer. So my woe is gone, I really did feel bad, it didn't make sense to me that he could speak about the company he works for with out repercussions. So anyway, moving on... This is just more GAK from a has been!!!
OH NO YOU DIDN'T.
Seriously, this is Rick F'N Priestly. The father of Warhammer. A man once referred to in a White Dwarf as the real Emperor of Mankind. The fact that someone of his stature is basically saying this should lift the fog that surrounds GWombies such as yourself so you can see clearly.
Kelly502 wrote: I'm not name calling, he is devaluing a hobby, from a company he "has" worked for in the past. He is not current with what they are doing inside the company, he doesn't go to production meetings any longer, he is an outsider.
He works for another company in a similar market correct? So really he is being unprofessional in defaming GW.
And why is that please? If something is going so very wrong in your company that you leave because of it, you are damn well allowed to say why you did so. That's got nothing to do with being unprofessional. It's one thing if you got fired for lazyness and calling your ex-boss a slavedriving jerk or whatever but it's a different story if you left your company after a damn long time because you were not behind the descisions of the new management.
Do we know exactly why he left? That would allow us to know what combination of sour grapes or righteous anger drives his statements.
I heard that he had been promoted to a point that he essentially had very little work to do. After Warhammer historicals was closed, his creative input on projects was next to none, and so at that point he was moved on to new pastures where he could do what he wanted to do.
There's a few ways to interpret it, some less savory than others. I have always gotten the impression that there's a layer of tension and bad feelings underlying a lot of the extant relationships in Nottingham. There are certain subjects some people don't like to talk about, other people flatly refuse to talk about, and still other people who will try to put a good face on.
In my experience, there's usually lots of qualifiers being attached to various comments. So-and-so already said X and Y so I'll just say Z. I wouldn't want to say anything bad about so-and-so. I still see this person or that person 'round the pub. So and so still works for GW.
GW is always an elephant in the room that most folks don't like to acknowledge. It is often like talking to someone about their friend's ex who is still friends with people they both know and is now dating another person they all know. And that suggests that there are bitter and deep-seated feelings somewhere in the nooks and crannies of those often long, intimate, and thoroughly interwoven relationships.
I work in a fairly niche and intimate business, and it is the same way. Certain topics are taboo. People remember that so-and-so used to work for this big firm but left for this reason or that reason and started a competing firm. This person did this or that to this other person back in the day, but now they have to work together. My industry isn't dominated by that BS, but it is there. And it is obviously there in the table top miniature wargaming industry, and painfully so when the topic is even tangentially related to GW.
Frankly, I'm surprised Rick Priestly even mentioned the Chapterhouse Studios case. There's no quicker way to make someone in Nottingham pucker up than to say the word "Chapterhouse" in almost any context.
How is it in your areas? Do you still see lots of school-age kids coming in and playing/buying 40K stuff?
Almost every GW store I have ever been to has been almost all 'underage' people or very very young adults. The only place I usually see grown adults with piss piles of money are at tourneys.
And being 'visible' to adults doesn't equate to not existing. The difference is Hasbro is able to prove why that adult who spends 400$ a month on transformers is only 6% of their market and is willing to show that data to the adults to shut them up and put them in their place.
Kelly502 wrote: I'm not name calling, he is devaluing a hobby, from a company he "has" worked for in the past. He is not current with what they are doing inside the company, he doesn't go to production meetings any longer, he is an outsider.
He works for another company in a similar market correct? So really he is being unprofessional in defaming GW.
The White knight s strong with this on. Defamation has to amount to more than observations and mild criticism, and has to actually be untrue. You can't defame someone when saying something that's true.
Rick Priestly has been philosophical and professional about his time with GW and observations upon it. Given that they've deleted all the products he worked on and made him surplus to requirement. Certainly the things he has said have been well considered unlike the squawking about him being a 'has-been' that should apparently keep his mouth shut, because to say anything against the mighty Workshop should, apparently, be legally actionable. Absurd!
Personally, I'm significantly less of a fan of Rick Priestley after the Gates of Antares kickstarter screwup but yeah, it's daft to think of him as anything other than one of, if not the most influential guy who still works in the wargaming hobby out there.
Kelly502 wrote: I'm not name calling, he is devaluing a hobby, from a company he "has" worked for in the past. He is not current with what they are doing inside the company, he doesn't go to production meetings any longer, he is an outsider.
He works for another company in a similar market correct? So really he is being unprofessional in defaming GW.
Defaming how? It just seems that your A) really young and haven't seen the stuff GW pulls on people, Or B) just In Love with them so much you will take anything they do and treat it as Gospel.
I've always been baffled by the level of support the current entity that is GW gets in these sorts of threads. You have:
- A. The "Spots the Space Marine" debacle, where they tried to claim ownership of a concept invented decades before the company existed, as well as the attempted destruction of a children's book
- B. The Chapterhouse suit, which was a only stopped because they got pro-bono defense (imagine what it would have been like if CHS hadn't been able to defend themselves and GW steamrolled them...who would they have sued for concept infringement next?) and 75% of GW's claims were thrown out because they tried to claim ownership of things like roman numerals and further on shoulderpads... THEN coupled with the level of evidence-tampering GW did in trying to take back ownership of works they never even owned, and there's not a single person in the GW vs. CHS thread who can even throw their hands up in defense because the case was such a joke
- C. Continuous movement in the DLC direction of dividing up content, increasing the cost of rules and increasing the number of models necessary to play standard games through unit depreciation
- & D. More and more of the founding fathers of GW coming out and making comments about the current GW, of which really only constitutes Jervis Johnson from the old crew and Tom Kirby pulling a Putin by giving up CEO (since it was looked down upon that he controlled both of the top roles)
But still people come here to ridicule those who dare speak negatively of GW and defame the people who literally created 40k. What, because they're not on the current GW payroll? So who is the lord and father of 40k now, Tom Kirby? The unlisted "creative department"?
I get people love their models and all, they're very nice and I still think some of the best in the market. But let's not get our opinions of their models confused with what the company has become.
Compel wrote: Personally, I'm significantly less of a fan of Rick Priestley after the Gates of Antares kickstarter screwup but yeah, it's daft to think of him as anything other than one of, if not the most influential guy who still works in the wargaming hobby out there.
Indeed He was asking for a staggering amount though.
Accolade wrote: I've always been baffled by the level of support the current entity that is GW gets in these sorts of threads. You have:
- A. The "Spots the Space Marine" debacle, where they tried to claim ownership of a concept invented decades before the company existed, as well as the attempted destruction of a children's book
- B. The Chapterhouse suit, which was a only stopped because they got pro-bono defense (imagine what it would have been like if CHS hadn't been able to defend themselves and GW steamrolled them...who would they have sued for concept infringement next?) and 75% of GW's claims were thrown out because they tried to claim ownership of things like roman numerals and further on shoulderpads... THEN coupled with the level of evidence-tampering GW did in trying to take back ownership of works they never even owned, and there's not a single person in the GW vs. CHS thread who can even throw their hands up in defense because the case was such a joke
- C. Continuous movement in the DLC direction of dividing up content, increasing the cost of rules and increasing the number of models necessary to play standard games through unit depreciation
- & D. More and more of the founding fathers of GW coming out and making comments about the current GW, of which really only constitutes Jervis Johnson from the old crew and Tom Kirby pulling a Putin by giving up CEO (since it was looked down upon that he controlled both of the top rolls)
But still people come here to ridicule those who dare speak negatively of GW and defame the people who literally created 40k. What, because they're not on the current GW payroll? So who is the lord and father of 40k now, Tom Kirby? The unlisted "creative department"?
I get people love their models and all, they're very nice and I still think some of the best in the market. But let's not get our opinions of their models confused with what the company has become.
Yes, this exactly. How people could support a business that acts this way is beyond me.
As to the question of younger players: At my FLGS, I seldom see young players (below 20) and usually they're playing MTG.
I'm not much of a Rick Priestly fan. He had some good ideas 20-odd years ago, but none of them translate into the "fast, casual" gaming that I enjoy, nor the "balanced, competitive" ideal that others want. That's why Gates of Anatares failed completely once people realized this was a vanity project.
I'm much more of a Jervis fan, based on how he cleans up horrendously messy rulesets and streamlines them for playability.
I do think that Rick is very much of a Molyneux squirrel, with lots of constantly changing ideas of all different types going all different directions, but little ability to implement them all.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm not much of a Rick Priestly fan. He had some good ideas 20-odd years ago, but none of them translate into the "fast, casual" gaming that I enjoy, nor the "balanced, competitive" ideal that others want. That's why Gates of Anatares failed completely once people realized this was a vanity project.
I'm much more of a Jervis fan, based on how he cleans up horrendously messy rulesets and streamlines them for playability.
I do think that Rick is very much of a Molyneux squirrel, with lots of constantly changing ideas of all different types going all different directions, but little ability to implement them all.
Warmaster, Hail Caeser, and Black Powder all go against your opinion, I think.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm much more of a Jervis fan, based on how he cleans up horrendously messy rulesets and streamlines them for playability.
What rulesets would that be? Because he sure fethed up 40k with random charts and distances everywhere. That's not playability. You might find it fun, but's gakky rules.
Flashman wrote: Regardless of whether GW customers ever get round to gaming with their purchases, it's the prospect of gaming with their purchases that draws them in.
Remove the game (or fail to make it good), you lose that draw and people stop buying miniatures.
My thoughts exactly.
Take away the game and there is little reason for most people to continue purchasing.
Also, I'm genuinely surprised how the GW apologists are anti - Rick P. The dude basically created 40k.
When Rick Priestly wrote Rogue Trader his name was put on the cover, much like the way a lot of continental board game manufacturers put their designers on the front like authors. There's no sense of pride now, GW have no personalities in their design team. People only know Jervis because he was one of the big names back in the day. The rest have been weeded out leaving it rather anonymous.
Howard A Treesong wrote: When Rick Priestly wrote Rogue Trader his name was put on the cover, much like the way a lot of continental board game manufacturers put their designers on the front like authors. There's no sense of pride now, GW have no personalities in their design team. People only know Jervis because he was one of the big names back in the day. The rest have been weeded out leaving it rather anonymous.
The way GW wants it.
But having a face of the company that people like, and respect, makes things easier to sell.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm not much of a Rick Priestly fan. He had some good ideas 20-odd years ago, but none of them translate into the "fast, casual" gaming that I enjoy, nor the "balanced, competitive" ideal that others want. That's why Gates of Anatares failed completely once people realized this was a vanity project.
Warmaster, Hail Caeser, and Black Powder all go against your opinion, I think.
I'm not much of a fan for any of those games, athough I do believe that Warmaster's 10mm is a vastly superior scale for WFB than 28-30mm. They may be good for others, but they're not much for me.
___
WayneTheGame wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm much more of a Jervis fan, based on how he cleans up horrendously messy rulesets and streamlines them for playability.
What rulesets would that be? Because he sure fethed up 40k with random charts and distances everywhere. That's not playability. You might find it fun, but's gakky rules.
Jervis has his fingers in pretty much everything that comes out of GW, but he's my favorite designer because he was behind much of the 40k3 and 40k4 rules cleanup, along with the 40k3 IG and Craftworld codices.
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Jervis_Johnson
My understanding is that Jervis pushes to streamline things, not add random charts.
If his editorials in WD are accurate, JJ is the living embodiment of "everything should be random!! random is awesome!!" thinking and the "on a 4+ I get to cheat" style of rules authoring.
I dunno, his discussion of BFG relative to the Epic revamp seemed like he was pushing for simplification. It was a long time ago, so maybe I misremember. Sorry.
I do prefer his ethos of casual gaming. That's for sure.
How is it in your areas? Do you still see lots of school-age kids coming in and playing/buying 40K stuff?
I can't really speak to that. There's only ever been one GW store in all of metro Atlanta at one time. There was a 3-4 year period where there were no stores until one opened up about two years ago. I've only been there a half dozen times or so, and they only have one gaming table, so I cannot speak to how many people of what demographic go there.
However, in the biggest LGS around here, there are about a dozen 4'x6' tables and four 4'x4' tables plus enough card tables to have 120+ PTQ tournaments for MtG. They're pretty busy just about every day of the week. I am sure there are some teenagers that play 40K there (though I honestly cannot think of a single one off the top of my head), but nowhere as many as I used to see when I first moved to Atlanta in 2004 (when at least half of the regular players were in high school; I'm still friends with several of them).
IIRC, JJ was the main guy behind BB. He's the guy who kept SG around for as long as he could, and released the rules to the public. He fights the good fight on behalf of casuals everywhere. I gotta respect that.
Also, he was the one to give players the honest gak about what happened with the Squats.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm much more of a Jervis fan, based on how he cleans up horrendously messy rulesets and streamlines them for playability.
What rulesets would that be? Because he sure fethed up 40k with random charts and distances everywhere. That's not playability. You might find it fun, but's gakky rules.
Now I never played Rogue Trader but I do remember reading some White Dwarf mags from that period that featured a lot of random tables for Orks (along with make your own Gobsmasha and Baneblade templates). Was that common for all army of the time or were those just to reflect Ork craziness?
Orks were particularly random, but there was a fair amount of it in the rest of the game as well.
The thing is, Rogue Trader was almost as much RPG as wargame, so having whole bunches of stuff out of the players' control wasn't as much of an issue as in later editions.
insaniak wrote: Orks were particularly random, but there was a fair amount of it in the rest of the game as well.
The thing is, Rogue Trader was almost as much RPG as wargame, so having whole bunches of stuff out of the players' control wasn't as much of an issue as in later editions.
RT was fun. However there's little joy in GW nowerdays. The mini armies like the forthcoming Admech n Cult armies are too little too late. No mini game like Necromunda or Mordhiem, Nothing beyond 40K and whatever horror Fantasy will become it just makes me truly,truly sad.
People think this 30k game will save GW in 6 months the rules will be gone, and it will be abandoned within 2 years I bet you.
I've known the Games Industry going on 20 plus years now. And not 1 person I talk to who is currently in or has been speaks highly of GW upper management.
I honestly thought WOTC or CCP were kinda grumpy, nothing simply nothing compared to GW
But RT evolved into 2nd Ed, and that's really the the genesis of 40k as most people would recognise it, and that was categorically an oppositional battle game, albeit with a much lower scale focus and a lot more detail. (Some of which was determined by random generation, but it somehow never felt as inappropriate as the random we have in 6/7th Ed)
Mymearan wrote:
They may be a thing, opinions apparently aren't, and wrong ones deserve to be mocked. Drop the attitude and name-calling.
Differing opinions occur all the time, especially with nerdy pursuits, but the examples I listed rely a special blend of tunnel vision, rationalisation, prickly defensiveness and a hazy grasp of facts, and it's far from the first time I've seen this kind of attitude among obsessive GW gamers. "Who is this Rick Priestly person to say nasty sue-able things about GW?" "Yeah, Alan Merrett sounds like he's saying blatantly daft things, but if you really think about them and squint just so, this is what he actually meant." "No other range of minis comes close to the beauty of this." These are certainly opinions, but do you honestly think they're coming from a position of clarity, and deserving of equal acceptance? Like Migoo said:
migooo wrote:Its kinda cult like behavior.
I watched this documentary a couple of years ago. When the section about Apple's cultlike practises and following came up, I couldn't help but mentally insert GW and GW gamers into the situation.
'GWombie' is cruel, but not entirely inaccurate given the (sometimes aggressive) single-minded focus, and to be honest a sharp needle can be useful to pierce through that obfuscating GW fug.
migooo wrote:Indeed He was asking for a staggering amount though.
In return for a couple of ideas scribbled on the back of a napkin. I remember one of their few big concepts for an alien race was some dude's slightly wonky Slaanesh daemon for a GD competition.
But it's one of the few missteps I've seen connected to Rick Priestly.
MWHistorian wrote:Also, I'm genuinely surprised how the GW apologists are anti - Rick P.
Well once it was apparent he didn't want to toe Iosif Kirby's line, it turned out he wasn't a true revolyutsionnyy after all.
Really don't understand why they'd reduce focus on the gaming aspect.
Everyone loves games.
I wondered whether the fact that I lost interest in GW was because of my age (38), but I rediscovered my passion for gaming with X Wing which is a fantastic rule set.
Just been playing Pandemic with Mrs Flashman (great fun - think cooperative Risk with disease control instead of battles), which was £30 spent on a game rather than GW miniatures.
Azreal13 wrote:Well, BFG was Andy Chamber's baby, and IIRC he co-wrote epic with Rick.
I'm struggling to think of any core rules you could say were mainly JJ's work...
Maybe Blood Bowl?
I think JJ had a hand in a lot of games, although as far as I can remember his input for BFG was to make Eldar nigh on unstoppable, so he could have an Eldar army that actually won things
Think Space Hulk has JJ's name in the credits? I'm not sure.
JohnHwangDD wrote:IIRC, JJ was the main guy behind BB. He's the guy who kept SG around for as long as he could, and released the rules to the public. He fights the good fight on behalf of casuals everywhere. I gotta respect that.
Also, he was the one to give players the honest gak about what happened with the Squats.
Very true. JJ was also the reason that the Specialist Games lines lasted as long as they did, without him they would have disappeared years before.
I thought about the pumbaagor, but as a highly unique l33t badazz over-nine-thousand action man leader (i.e. what 40K is really about) of one of the most popular colours of the most popular army of the more popular game, I figured Logan Claus was a better single representation of the overall aesthetic of 40K.*
Some of the details are nice. For example the aesthetic of those metal plaques round the side looks quite good, from what I can see in photos. But then you zoom out and the aesthetic is an elite sci-fi soldier in a giant bulky metal space suit being pulled around in a wee sled by a pair of big huskies.
*Thinking about it, I should've just linked to a pile of skulls. Covered in blood. And murder.
And Rick Priestly something something something. Did I mention his magazine column is one of the biggest reasons I buy Wargames: Soldiers and Strategy? He casts a few game design pearls in that, including his attempts to inject a bit more scenario play into modern gaming.
I wondered whether the fact that I lost interest in GW was because of my age (38), but I rediscovered my passion for gaming with X Wing which is a fantastic rule set.
Speaking personally, I don't think it's entirely uncorrelated. I'm a card-carrying subscriber to the notion that 40K's reliance on stats, tables, special rules, field-leveling randomness and listbuilding strategy appeals to data-soaking young minds (the big spiky asskickers who look so grimdark and 'adult' do the initial hooking) while elegant rulesets and on-the-fly tactical decision making start looking better later on.
All of the articles in the White Dwarfs I've read penned by JJ make it fairly simple to see he's one the leading problems as the downfall of the game. With all the other writers slowly bailing and him gaining control simply by seniority, perhaps a twinge of nepotism, you can see his affects grow on the game.
If people like Random-Table-Hammer, then so be it, but I'd not call it much of an actual game. And regardless of affinity for Priestly, it doesn't much change the validity of the statements; turn your back on what built you (gamers) and you'll reap what you sow.
I actually sat and watched a league game of Blood Bowl being played for the first time last week.
It seemed to take nearly 20 minutes (I'm exaggerating, but I don't know quite how much), of random table and chart rolling before they could actually start the game.
I hope it was just all optional rules added in or something (A bit like how Dreadball has a bunch of optional rules that you can throw in to spice things up), but flipping heck it seemed to take ages. Fan Factors, fame, cheerleaders, weather and more. It just seemed to go on and on and on.
Then someone started dancing because the other player nudged a model and forfeited his turn. Blergh.
Rick Priestly has been saying these things in various places, forums, magazines, podcasts for a number of years now. Sometimes he is more outspoken than not. Nottingham wargaming is a small community and being careful about what you say just might be sensible when the folks involved are mates. This time he is being a bit more clear.
I think there are way too many people here who do not know the foggiest about the wider wargaming hobby outside GW, making too many accusations.
BB is a "league" game, and those always have some random stuff to adjudicate. Newer league games (i.e. Necromunda & Mordheim) have that stuff as part of the postmortem, and it takes quite a while (but is frequently hilarious).
But then, throwing a pass takes what, two, three rolls? That's assuming it's completed, if it isn't, then you then have to roll for random direction for where the ball ends up, and, it's been a while, but I think there's even more rolling to do if it bounces onto another player?
Blocking, running, etc, etc all require rolls at multiple stages to determine success or failure, and frequently has further random effects if failed.
I'm by no means criticising BB as a bad game, I have many happy memories of it, but if you were looking for an indicator that the designer has a hard-on for random, then you'd have to hold it up as exhibit A.
Pretty much all minis games are random success/failure - go look at HTH in something in 40k / WMH / whatever - you've got a series of (opposed) randoms you need to pass there, too. It's a silly game, not too complicated, lots of fun. Making it deterministic changes the feel of the game completely.
Yes, but there's a line between rolling dice to see how effective your shooting is, and needing to roll a dice to see if you can shoot at all.
The first is a mathematical curve, where a player can use skill and judgment to maximise the odds of as successful an outcome as possible, the second is just arbitrary chance, and that is the thing people seem to object to.
That's actually really interesting, it sounds like Dreadball has a very similar passing mechanic to Blood Bowl, which I often found was probably the clunkiest part of Dreadball. Of course, I suppose the big difference is, in Dreadball, you might see a pass happen once every 5 games, there's usually a far easier way to go about it.
Anyhow, even I admit (I mentioned I'm not a Priestley fan). The Bolt Action dice bag mechanic really is a clever and elegant idea for the scale of game Bolt Action is designed for.
Mymearan wrote:
They may be a thing, opinions apparently aren't, and wrong ones deserve to be mocked. Drop the attitude and name-calling.
Differing opinions occur all the time, especially with nerdy pursuits, but the examples I listed rely a special blend of tunnel vision, rationalisation, prickly defensiveness and a hazy grasp of facts, and it's far from the first time I've seen this kind of attitude among obsessive GW gamers. "Who is this Rick Priestly person to say nasty sue-able things about GW?" "Yeah, Alan Merrett sounds like he's saying blatantly daft things, but if you really think about them and squint just so, this is what he actually meant." "No other range of minis comes close to the beauty of this." These are certainly opinions, but do you honestly think they're coming from a position of clarity, and deserving of equal acceptance? Like Migoo said:
migooo wrote:Its kinda cult like behavior.
I watched this documentary a couple of years ago. When the section about Apple's cultlike practises and following came up, I couldn't help but mentally insert GW and GW gamers into the situation.
'GWombie' is cruel, but not entirely inaccurate given the (sometimes aggressive) single-minded focus, and to be honest a sharp needle can be useful to pierce through that obfuscating GW fug.
Insulting Rick Priestley without realizing his huge contribution to wargaming history is indeed pretty stupid and worthy of mockery. Simply liking GW models and games is not. And I can't say that I've seen much of this "cult-like" behavior on dakka. In fact. I see way more insults, group-think and snide comments from the anti-GW people than I do from GW fans (who seem to be in the minority on here). To me it seems both unnecessary and counterproductive. It's fine to point out GWs (many) faults and mistakes, another to deride people who use and enjoy their products.
theHandofGork wrote: Rick Priestley posted a few comments on Facebook today that I thought the dakka community would find interesting. If this is inappropriate for the Dakka Discussions page I'm sure a Mod will let me know.
It started with following being posted on his wall:
You sir are a legend! Its a shame that gw have lost their way a bit and moved away from the humorous, dark, irrelevant and very British state of Warhammer and 40k that you pretty much invented
After a number of replies from others with similar sentiments, Rick posted the following:
Blimey you turn your back for a day or two! I worked for GW (Citadel in Newark and then GW at Eastwood and Nottingham) for 28 years, and the company changed a great deal over that time, but we always aimed at making money. I can just about remember the days when making money was about having enough in the bank at the end of the month to cover our wages - I don't know if that was ever literally true - but it certainly came across that way! We also enjoyed what we were doing! We enjoyed games and gaming and - of course - the models that went with that. The big recent change is that GW has actually stated - both during the Chapter House court hearing and subsequently to its shareholders - that it considers its market to be collectors of models and not gamers. The games are very much played down internally, and you can see with the latest (very nicely done!) models that they are conceived as collectors pieces that have very little practicality in terms of a wargame. It's perfec tly fine for GW to turn its backs upon wargaming in favour of modelling and collecting if that is the vision of the current management. But the result is that many customers who are or have been passionate about GW's games do feel marginalized.
I should add that we always used to maintain a games design department that was fairly heavy weight - smart guys, some of them rebarbative, bloody-minded and mildly dangerous types (dangerous to themselves on occasion). I won't say who it was... but one of our staff once ran back into the burning building he'd just been rescued from by the fire brigade to recover his 'stash' from the flames! The design team has been run down over the years - the guys who work there now are just not doing the same sort of work and they're not the same sort of people. Probably for the best
...betting the company on the assumption that the market is primarily collectors and not gamers is a big gamble isn't it! In the short term it will work because so many gamers are loyal to the backgrounds and to what is left of the games range (that'll be 40K then). The large, very nicely done, collectors style pieces generate good sales at high margins. I would expect to see an improvement in full year performance under their new CEO - and maybe even a dividend! Long term though... if GW is sincere about changing its market stance (and does not lose its bottle and start to back track - which is still possible) it opens up the market to any number of new companies that are interested in games, gaming and gamers! That won't do GW any harm so long as they are determined to abandon that market - and it would leave them to concentrate on a mixture of high price highly profitable collectibles and licensing its IP out into other media - always something I felt was under exploited due to fear of losing control at the top of the business. But what do I know
Well I'm touched by all the thank yous! So let me add my own. Thank you for making it possible for me and so many of my comrades to earn a living doing something we love - there's not many people get that chance - and I remain eternally grateful.
I hope someone else found this to be interesting as well.
1. And he DID see the emerging third party miniature SMEs that fills in the gap of what the current management of GW had ignored for years.
2. And... Citadel did NOT stick to what they does best! entering 'finecast' collectors edition products is a wrong step because it's NOT what they used to.... it creates a redundancy with FW.. a very unneccessary redundancy!
@Mymearan.
Well I find many threads , that are discussing the poor business decisions or poor rules writing of GW OFTEN get locked by such single mined individuals that will not debate or discuss anything.
But just spout blind faith in GW in all things,and then turn to name calling and/or dragging the thread so far off topic to get it locked.(As they have no factual evidence or objective reasoning to fall back on.)
Liking the look and sound of 40k is normal.Playing games with GW minatures is normal.(For gamers anyway.)
I think the term 'GWombie ' is reserved for posters who willfully ignore facts , objective reasoning and civil discussion on GW business practice and game development threads .In other word TFGs of these forums.
If you could show me a thread where a so called 'GW hater' has posted a comment that they can not back up with some objective reasoning or factual evidence. And refused to discuss things further ?
Pointing out that companies that appeal to gamers and collectors , have a bigger market share than companies that just appeal to collectors,Is not really stating any thing but fact.
Pointing out that a shrinking customers base has to progressively pay more to support the company , if the company want to maintain turn over is another fact.
In summary , GW plc decided to reduce its active customer base by more than half, and ask its remaining customers to pay over double the price for its products.
And the positive word of mouth marketing GW plc are supposed to depend on, that they used to get from positive gaming experiences.
Walked right out the door and into their competitors.
How can this be seen as good for any one caring about GW or GW games long term?
Mymearan wrote:
They may be a thing, opinions apparently aren't, and wrong ones deserve to be mocked. Drop the attitude and name-calling.
Differing opinions occur all the time, especially with nerdy pursuits, but the examples I listed rely a special blend of tunnel vision, rationalisation, prickly defensiveness and a hazy grasp of facts, and it's far from the first time I've seen this kind of attitude among obsessive GW gamers. "Who is this Rick Priestly person to say nasty sue-able things about GW?" "Yeah, Alan Merrett sounds like he's saying blatantly daft things, but if you really think about them and squint just so, this is what he actually meant." "No other range of minis comes close to the beauty of this." These are certainly opinions, but do you honestly think they're coming from a position of clarity, and deserving of equal acceptance? Like Migoo said:
migooo wrote:Its kinda cult like behavior.
I watched this documentary a couple of years ago. When the section about Apple's cultlike practises and following came up, I couldn't help but mentally insert GW and GW gamers into the situation.
'GWombie' is cruel, but not entirely inaccurate given the (sometimes aggressive) single-minded focus, and to be honest a sharp needle can be useful to pierce through that obfuscating GW fug.
Insulting Rick Priestley without realizing his huge contribution to wargaming history is indeed pretty stupid and worthy of mockery. Simply liking GW models and games is not. And I can't say that I've seen much of this "cult-like" behavior on dakka. In fact. I see way more insults, group-think and snide comments from the anti-GW people than I do from GW fans (who seem to be in the minority on here). To me it seems both unnecessary and counterproductive. It's fine to point out GWs (many) faults and mistakes, another to deride people who use and enjoy their products.
Look a person can like GW figures and not like the company. I like that Bloodthirster ( well one build of it anyway) but I don't like how they've nuked fantasy to oblivion. And considering I'm only doing Carnival of Chaos at the moment, and not sure how it would fit in, even if I can get 25 percent off. Regardless. I've witnessed the behavior of GW apologists who still claim that Finecast was the best thing since sliced bread. That their allowed to make money ( yeah they were making money when they had sales and staff didn't try to push a useless LOTR box under my nose the moment I mention Mordhiem) they had 3 staff members and the shop was always full, now its a fliping ghost town.
maybe I am old and bitter, but Kirby was just brought in to do the books before his slimy take over, the fact that the staff are always right is also another irritant.
while I may never ever agree with everything RP did, he did give me some happy moments gaming in my rather unpleasant childhood and he deserves my respect for this. GW has lost this with their Attitude.
What annoys me is how we can barely have a discussion without it descending in to a vitriolic exchange. I don't care which side you're on, there's no benefit to making insulting comments. And yes, it is insulting to suggest people are fanboys, haters, ignorant, possessing a blind faith, are clueless, etc etc.
I'm firmly in the anti-GW mindset, but for feth sake, it's a hobby, if someone can enjoy GW products without stressing over the ins and outs of GW I don't see why they should be attacked for it.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:What annoys me is how we can barely have a discussion without it descending in to a vitriolic exchange. I don't care which side you're on, there's no benefit to making insulting comments. And yes, it is insulting to suggest people are fanboys, haters, ignorant, possessing a blind faith, are clueless, etc etc.
Well if the shoe fits...
In seriousness, though, are you suggesting the outrage against Rick P, for example, was borne out of a full knowledge of the facts and a reasonably balanced view of what Games Workshop does? When people react with aggression caused by - to be blunt - ignorance and an overdeveloped sense of loyalty to an uncaring, fault-ridden company, what would you do?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: What annoys me is how we can barely have a discussion without it descending in to a vitriolic exchange. I don't care which side you're on, there's no benefit to making insulting comments. And yes, it is insulting to suggest people are fanboys, haters, ignorant, possessing a blind faith, are clueless, etc etc.
I'm firmly in the anti-GW mindset, but for feth sake, it's a hobby, if someone can enjoy GW products without stressing over the ins and outs of GW I don't see why they should be attacked for it.
Your right we should be able to talk without name calling, it doesn't matter who started it I apologise if I said something out of order.
I loved GW, sad to say I truly did.. when I was thinking of giving up the thought of a new figure kept me hanging on.
i just wish 40k and most games workshop products for that matter would be cheaper, if lets say a pack of termies were only 15-20 pounds than i would me so inclined to buy them and i probably would they would make more money in the longer run. agian if a tactical squad were 15-20 pounds i would buy a lot more than i have done
AllSeeingSkink wrote: What annoys me is how we can barely have a discussion without it descending in to a vitriolic exchange. I don't care which side you're on, there's no benefit to making insulting comments. And yes, it is insulting to suggest people are fanboys, haters, ignorant, possessing a blind faith, are clueless, etc etc.
I'm firmly in the anti-GW mindset, but for feth sake, it's a hobby, if someone can enjoy GW products without stressing over the ins and outs of GW I don't see why they should be attacked for it.
I agree with this. No need for name calling.
Save the insults for Games Workshop.
the clone wrote: i just wish 40k and most games workshop products for that matter would be cheaper, if lets say a pack of termies were only 15-20 pounds than i would me so inclined to buy them and i probably would they would make more money in the longer run. agian if a tactical squad were 15-20 pounds i would buy a lot more than i have done
We all do, remember most stuff is done via CAD now and injection molded, mostly I believe in China, It used to be the UK in Nottingham and I think Memphis had one too, but Not sure on that one.
Its not cheap sure but Digital Sculpting in some ways is far easier no need for materials just a decent z brush like program. And you can tell, you really can, While the kits are getting better I'm not to fond of the angular way some kits / models are now. RH is nice but you can still tell if you look.
Now lets be really clear on this, there was a manager who had to say a certain kit was better than the old figures, it wasn't. ( he confessed to me later that on company time he has to tow the line) But it made me annoyed, that he had to be dishonest in order to try to sell me the kit which I didn't purchase anyway.
If i could ask Rick any question it would be this did the design team know people in the stores were being dishonest like this , just because something was replaced by plastic? could they have done anything about it?
But yeah the pricing is another niggle, yes they have to pay bills but really i think they are pushing limits on certain prices.
I left GW games when it became apparent that there were other, and in my opinion, better game systems out there with great models. All I had to do was break from my "I've spent so much on GW that I can't switch" mentality.
I love the time that I've had painting and playing my Eldar and my bretonnians, and I still have my multiple war bands for Mordheim. I hold on to them, I suppose for sentimentality's sake, but I've moved on to spending money and time elsewhere. And now I'm much happier, since my chosen game has spectacular models, a great rules system that just came out with its much improved third edition, and a company that actively engages its customers.
I would suggest that perhaps it is time to start showing any disapproval you might have with GW's practices by voting with your wallet. Try a new game. There are plenty of games out there that have lasted long enough to be considered "established." There are games that cater to heavy tournament play style, and ones that cater to more casual styles of play. There are models of many different styles, although if you are obsessed with skulls, skulls, and more skulls, you might be stuck with GW.
GW will do what it thinks is right. You should too. I bear GW much less ill-will now that their marketing strategies have very little effect on my hobby. I pull out the Eldar three or four times a year to play with friends, but really my hobbying is spent elsewhere.
I feel like Rick from Casa Blanca. "We'll always have the Eye Of Terror."
Fascinating discussion ! - add me to the list of "collectors" GW and other companies sell to - I buy LE Codexes for both WFB & WH40K , dice , cards , Forgeworld in bulk , a large amount of plastic on a regular basis for over the top sized armies which I have no intention of ever playing . I like the fluff , I like the imagery and I like a fair amount of models - I love building , painting and ranking my collections . I also collect Kingdom Death , Red Box Games , Anvil industries , Scibor Minis , Victoria Miniatures , Dragon/Tamiya/Trumpeter WW2 Armor and Aircraft and very a little amount of Airfix amongst other things .
The GW gaming piece has always seemed overly cluttered to me ( especially with vehicles on board ) and has removed any strong urge to play ( it disturbs my suspension of disbelief ) . If was to ever decide to play with friends it would probably be on an enormous table with apocalypse-like rules in my attic . I have no desire to step foot in a Games Shop and interact with Strangers .... different courses for different horses and all that .
one thing I don't get is that scouts (who are rubbish compared to regular and veteran marines) cost 17.5 pounds for 5 but a pack of ten regular marines costs 25 pounds so that means 10 scouts would cost 35 pounds which is 10 pounds more than marines who are better. anyone see any logic there apart from 'production costs' (which i dont belive would cost that much) or the fact that gw are ripping us of once more again?
Had a long chat with Rick today at Hammerhead where he had Gates of Antares on the go.
One topic covered was the idea that many of his factions are based on the politics of the 70s and 80s, sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes not (Ghazukul im looking at you)
I think the same about 40k and a lot of other things. However, today i spent £10 on 3 Otherworld orcs just to paint, they will then sit and never hit the table in anger in all likelihood. Sometimes cost is subjective.
I think the same about 40k and a lot of other things. However, today i spent £10 on 3 Otherworld orcs just to paint, they will then sit and never hit the table in anger in all likelihood. Sometimes cost is subjective.
Otherworld Miniatures? I use some of their minis them for D&D and LOTR SBG.
the clone wrote: i see your point, most of my minis will never see the table ang just gather dust on my shelf
I like to think that most (51+%) of my minis will have seen the tabletop at least once, but I think I need to do a better job of making stuff playable, and forcing myself to play it.
I often think when people ask for better rules from GW .And say that they want more than just to collect minatures, they want a good game to use them in.
The people that mainly just collect minatures, (or even just buy product and never get round to assembling and painting most of it.)
Seem to think that 'gamers' are having a go at the 'collectors.'
Where as the gamers just need more motivation to buy the product than the collectors do. And if GW could put just a bit more effort, into improving game play.Maybe GW would have a growing market share instead of a shrinking one?
If GW plc added value to their product by improving rules quality, it would appeal to more customers.
The more customers you have the less profit you need to make per item sold.So prices do not have to be increased to cover falling sales volumes.
(Because sales volumes would be increasing!)
This improves value for money , and so gains even more customers.Which increases profit off stable prices even more.
I really can not understand how people who want GW plc to succeed and grow their customer base by being pro active and engaging with more customers,
can be called 'GW haterz.'
Unless you do not use deductive reasoning and just assume that any sort of critique, no matter how valid or supported is just 'hate'.
Where as ..
It it good enough for me , so it must be good enough for everyone ...I can afford it, so every one should be able to...
Appear to be the opinions of those who try to defend the actions of GW corporate management.
As they are GW plcs corporate managements primary demographic in a shrinking customer base.
I have gone from buying lots and lots of GW stuff (10-15 years ago) to basically not buying any GW stuff (last 5 years). That I continue to play the occasional GW game instead of liquidating my GW collection doesn't make me some sort of apologist or supporter. Nor does my choice to stop buying GW product in favor of higher-value (mostly KS) board games make me some sort of hater.
There is a range of hobby out there. As Jervis says, players should take ownership of their gaming experience, and I think I do so. As a garage gamer, I have the freedom to play older Codices on a whim, along with House Rules to take out the tedium (e.g. closest first).
I'm not even sure there is a strategy for GW to recapture my hobby / gaming spend. I have a lifetime's worth of GW minis which I am slowly working through to get playable. I have plenty enough rulesets to pick and choose through. I am very challenged imagining what might compel me to buy another Codex ever so slightly different from what I currently play, or buying more models while I'm still working on getting other models fully painted.
I know exactly what GW have to do to recapture my £.
1. Lower prices to a reasonable level. That doesnt necessarily mean lower than anyone else, it means not the daft prices they are now.
2. Release a ruleset tbat maintains the unique flavour and setting of the universe. That means no daft allies allowed, Chaos isnt essentially homogenous, troops are an actually valid choice etc
3. Re engage with the community. Have official tournaments again. Stop sueing the bejesus out of everyone (especially those who are keeping your murdered games alive)
4. Necromunda, Mordheim, Blood Bowl etc. Resurrection.
5. Tell your shop staff to calm the hell down.
1. Lower prices to a reasonable level. That doesnt necessarily mean lower than anyone else, it means not the daft prices they are now.
2. Release a ruleset tbat maintains the unique flavour and setting of the universe. That means no daft allies allowed, Chaos isnt essentially homogenous, troops are an actually valid choice etc
3. Re engage with the community. Have official tournaments again. Stop sueing the bejesus out of everyone (especially those who are keeping your murdered games alive)
4. Necromunda, Mordheim, Blood Bowl etc. Resurrection.
5. Tell your shop staff to calm the hell down.
i agree, with all the special rules and phases it isnt that fun to play any more. i liked it when games were simple, fun and enjoyable like in 3rd, 3rd was definitely the last edition to have the rogue trader 'feel' to It
Compel wrote: Personally, I'm significantly less of a fan of Rick Priestley after the Gates of Antares kickstarter screwup but yeah, it's daft to think of him as anything other than one of, if not the most influential guy who still works in the wargaming hobby out there.
Indeed He was asking for a staggering amount though.
I think he just took a naieve approach - he needed £300k to do it and was up front, but that put people off. If he needed £30k to do the rule book and then add everything else in with stretch goals they'd have smashed through the £300k limit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm not much of a Rick Priestly fan. He had some good ideas 20-odd years ago, but none of them translate into the "fast, casual" gaming that I enjoy, nor the "balanced, competitive" ideal that others want. That's why Gates of Anatares failed completely once people realized this was a vanity project.
What do you regard as a "fast, casual game" because Rick P has been involved in what are generally regarded as the best casual games in most eras.
I'll be honest, I'm going completely by memory here.
However, I remember getting annoyed by an interview afterwards where he was saying that he didn't really 'get' kickstarter, the experience wasn't what he expected etc, etc.
All I could remember thinking was:
"Dude, you're going up in front of the internet, asking for more than a quarter of a million pounds from them. The very LEAST you could have done was some proper research first. I'm assuming you would have done some if you were going to a bank for a loan."
And, again, this a completely personal opinion and probably my own failing due to being grumpy, but still, I got really quite annoyed that a couple of months after the kickstarter finished, there was another interview where he was talking about his heated gaming room he had built out of a barn and the huge amount of money it cost him but it was worth it. That just made me go, "really, really?"
I'm completely willing to admit my grumpiness is irrational and again, I'd like to state that I'm fully aware of his impact on the industry.
Compel wrote: Personally, I'm significantly less of a fan of Rick Priestley after the Gates of Antares kickstarter screwup but yeah, it's daft to think of him as anything other than one of, if not the most influential guy who still works in the wargaming hobby out there.
Indeed He was asking for a staggering amount though.
I think he just took a naieve approach - he needed £300k to do it and was up front, but that put people off. If he needed £30k to do the rule book and then add everything else in with stretch goals they'd have smashed through the £300k limit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm not much of a Rick Priestly fan. He had some good ideas 20-odd years ago, but none of them translate into the "fast, casual" gaming that I enjoy, nor the "balanced, competitive" ideal that others want. That's why Gates of Anatares failed completely once people realized this was a vanity project.
What do you regard as a "fast, casual game" because Rick P has been involved in what are generally regarded as the best casual games in most eras.
But he didn't, he wanted everything upfront. And had very little prep work for what he was asking for.
Look everybody thinks that they can use KS to get funding for x, y and z now but honestly , the few I've been involved in would have probably been published anyway, if on longer schedules.
Look he has great ideas there is no denying this, he just needs help in certain things we all do. Maybe he has too many people telling him everything he does is fantastic
Personally I want a game system to rival GW, I think the industry needs it.
Wolfstan wrote: If GW consider their target market to be collectors and modellers why do they target young teen boys? A collector or modeller isn't going to build up huge armies, if you're lucky they will paint up one of each squad / vehicle / single piece.
True. Just a single unit of each type, not the spamming armies players often prefer.
I think this is the wrong way. Gaming is the major aspect of the game.
Wolfstan wrote: If GW consider their target market to be collectors and modellers why do they target young teen boys? A collector or modeller isn't going to build up huge armies, if you're lucky they will paint up one of each squad / vehicle / single piece.
True. Just a single unit of each type, not the spamming armies players often prefer.
I think this is the wrong way. Gaming is the major aspect of the game.
Indeed...If it wasn't for the game no one sane would buy the ridiculous multiples of minis just to complete their armies.
Wolfstan wrote: If GW consider their target market to be collectors and modellers why do they target young teen boys? A collector or modeller isn't going to build up huge armies, if you're lucky they will paint up one of each squad / vehicle / single piece.
True. Just a single unit of each type, not the spamming armies players often prefer.
I think this is the wrong way. Gaming is the major aspect of the game.
I think it's just an excuse to justify the lack of caring about the rules. They've convinced themselves they make toys and not a game so everything has been distorted to fit that narrative.
If the target audience really was nothing but collectors, then why is there a thriving market for third party models that are obvious representations for 40k stuff? The fantasy knock-offs can be used in a ton of different stuff, but there's really only one 40k.
Really, the prices could all stay the same. They just need to rewrite the rules and stop points inflation. Make a 10 man tactical squad + a rhino a solid portion of an army and something imposing on the table. Make five terminators something to fear and ten terminators a "ZOMG, SKEW!". Make Marines, and all the other factions, fall inline with the over the top style fluff of amazing madness. If people still want to play MASSIVE battles, then you can do so, but those of use that want a solid game pitched in the Grimdark Future of the 41st Millenium™ something affordable and fun versus a massive money sink for a random-filled slog with a constant "will it be crap?" roulette that is codex releases.
Also, put every single unit option/loadout in the box. Can take four melta guns? Have four melta guns in the box!
I wouldn't mind paying $50 for some termies if $50 got me something impactful. I pay close to $100 for a Colossal in Warmahordes, but it's 40% of an army and can pull 50%+ of the work with the right support. The same could be said of GWs showpiece large models.
That's about as optimistic/positive I will get on the subject of GW.
TheKbob wrote: If the target audience really was nothing but collectors, then why is there a thriving market for third party models that are obvious representations for 40k stuff? The fantasy knock-offs can be used in a ton of different stuff, but there's really only one 40k.
Really, the prices could all stay the same. They just need to rewrite the rules and stop points inflation. Make a 10 man tactical squad + a rhino a solid portion of an army and something imposing on the table. Make five terminators something to fear and ten terminators a "ZOMG, SKEW!". Make Marines, and all the other factions, fall inline with the over the top style fluff of amazing madness. If people still want to play MASSIVE battles, then you can do so, but those of use that want a solid game pitched in the Grimdark Future of the 41st Millenium™ something affordable and fun versus a massive money sink for a random-filled slog with a constant "will it be crap?" roulette that is codex releases.
Also, put every single unit option/loadout in the box. Can take four melta guns? Have four melta guns in the box!
I wouldn't mind paying $50 for some termies if $50 got me something impactful. I pay close to $100 for a Colossal in Warmahordes, but it's 40% of an army and can pull 50%+ of the work with the right support. The same could be said of GWs showpiece large models.
That's about as optimistic/positive I will get on the subject of GW.
But GW tried to do a set of collectors figures and it tanked so badly that they didn't do anything like it again.
The kits are not detailed enough to be true collector pieces maybe others disagree but if they would do more minis in the inqisitor scale then yeah it could be claimed.
migooo wrote: But GW tried to do a set of collectors figures and it tanked so badly that they didn't do anything like it again.
The kits are not detailed enough to be true collector pieces maybe others disagree but if they would do more minis in the inqisitor scale then yeah it could be claimed.
are you saying that Inquisitor minis were GW's line of Collector's Figures???
as far as i remember from the prerelease hype, it was billed as a new game, not a Collector's Series...
as for why it tanked, it seemed to be more that people didn't like the rules very much, and where not into having to build larger scale terrain to play...
the models themselves seemed to sell pretty well, and have become very collectible since they went OOP...
everything that i can recall being billed as Collector's Sets have sold well, such as the foil-packed Gotrek & Friends set, or the Skullz sets, which spurred people to buy a ton of minis to get those little stickers so they could exchange them for the Adeptus Mechanicus set of minis, or the Space Marine Iwo Jima set...
as for detail, i think GW minis are detailed enough for collectors...
i have been one for 30 years...
never been a gamer...
i am in it for the art, fiction, and minis...
most of the complaints that i have heard is that GW are cluttering their minis with too much detail...
personally, i prefer painting 28mm to 54mm minis...
i have enjoyed painting 54mm and 72mm minis, but not as much as 28mm...
all of the little "cheats" that work on a 28mm mini go out the window when working on the larger scale...
the bigger i go, the less it feels like "mini" painting...
Inquisitor, like Warmaster, Mordheim, the Epic and Necromunda relaunch and others didn't even exist long enough to judge whether they tanked or not. Basically, you had 6 months of releases, then they vanished, never to be mentioned again in white dwarf. Then 6 months after their last release, they disappeared from the shelves.
migooo wrote: But GW tried to do a set of collectors figures and it tanked so badly that they didn't do anything like it again.
The kits are not detailed enough to be true collector pieces maybe others disagree but if they would do more minis in the inqisitor scale then yeah it could be claimed.
are you saying that Inquisitor minis were GW's line of Collector's Figures???
as far as i remember from the prerelease hype, it was billed as a new game, not a Collector's Series...
as for why it tanked, it seemed to be more that people didn't like the rules very much, and where not into having to build larger scale terrain to play...
the models themselves seemed to sell pretty well, and have become very collectible since they went OOP...
everything that i can recall being billed as Collector's Sets have sold well, such as the foil-packed Gotrek & Friends set, or the Skullz sets, which spurred people to buy a ton of minis to get those little stickers so they could exchange them for the Adeptus Mechanicus set of minis, or the Space Marine Iwo Jima set...
as for detail, i think GW minis are detailed enough for collectors...
i have been one for 30 years...
never been a gamer...
i am in it for the art, fiction, and minis...
most of the complaints that i have heard is that GW are cluttering their minis with too much detail...
personally, i prefer painting 28mm to 54mm minis...
i have enjoyed painting 54mm and 72mm minis, but not as much as 28mm...
all of the little "cheats" that work on a 28mm mini go out the window when working on the larger scale...
the bigger i go, the less it feels like "mini" painting...
cheers
jah
No they released a set of Gotrek & Felix figures as well as a set of Blanche Femme militant figures, those were the collectors I'm referring too. Stores near me had sets left for a long time.
Perhaps in some people's opinions they might be detailed enough. But the plastic kits they only do now I honestly don't think so.
Look at stuff like Kingdom Death or the Bootleg Infinity, or even the latest releases from Malifaux. GW seem to be lacking compared to them.
@migooo: Blanche released the Femme Militant line himself as a small limited edition run, and they sold out very quickly...
they are now rarer than hen's teeth, and command a high price if you can find anyone willing to part with any...
i never saw them available in a GW store, or else i would have snapped them up...
at the time they were available, my local GW was the L.A. Battle Bunker, which had nearly all of the Forge World line, but not a single Femme Militant mini...
i mentioned the Gotrek & Friends set in my post...
they sold out online, and at all of the shops around L.A., within a year, but again, they were limited edition...
they seemed like a popular set to me...
GW has never had a Collector's Series, which, in my opinion would be qualified as a line of figures that stay in production, but are aimed at the collectors, so not needing game rules...
Forge World had the large scale Collector's Series models, which sold alright, but the large scale put a lot of people off...
sadly they went OOP, too...
for people who are more gamers than painters, the larger scale seems to be a scary challenge to tackle, from the majority of the comments i've seen...
for me, the humble Tactical Squad plastic Space Marine is detailed enough to enjoy collecting and painting, and have been since the first Rogue Trader Marines were released, all those years ago...
if they are not detailed enough for you, that's cool...
i have checked out Kingdom Death, and there is nothing there that inspires me to collect the minis...
i have a few Malifaux minis, but have yet to get urge to paint one...
the setting is just not my thing...
Infinity Bootleg is a nice range of models, and inspire me more that KD and Malifaux, simply because they are Sci-Fi, which is my preference...
i love most of Infinity's line of minis, and have collected a ton of them, but they still don't inspire me to paint as much as the humble Space Marine does...
if you really want to talk about beautiful minis, Studio Mcvey's L.E.'s are some of the most perfectly cast, amazing sculpts that i own, but they still don't inspire me to paint as much as a plastic Tac. Marine does...
you will like what you like, and i will like what i like...
obviously, as a collector of almost every line of miniatures made in the last 30 years, but a painter who prefers Space Marines over everything else, i am not going to see eye to eye with you on this issue...
GW has never had a Collector's Series, which, in my opinion would be qualified as a line of figures that stay in production, but are aimed at the collectors, so not needing game rules...
jah-joshua wrote: as for why it tanked, it seemed to be more that people didn't like the rules very much, and where not into having to build larger scale terrain to play...
It wasn't that people didn't like the rules, it's that they didn't go anywhere with them.
It was essentially an RPG, but they just released a rulebook and said 'There you go!' ... aside from a bare handful of material released in the short-lived magazine that each of the Specialist games briefly had, it was left up to the players to do all the work in creating campaigns for it.
The issue with scale was more down to the small range of models, and being incompatible with anything else on the market limiting the ability to use stand-ins or conversions.
It was a game with a lot of potential, but that just didn't go anywhere because GW didn't adequately support it.
Funnily enough, if GW HAD actually marketed the Inquisitor models years later as collector pieces when they let the game die, they probably would have done rather well.
I think it was even just back in 2010 that I eventually bought the Battle Brother Artemis model as the mascot for my Blood Ravens army.
I think we all need to take a step back for a moment and look at this objectively.
Point - Games Workshop has stated that their target demographic is 'collectors'.
Counter Point - We do not know how Games Workshop defines 'collectors'.
I see it as... A collector can be a gamer, but a gamer is not always a collector.
Point - A collector, in my experience, is usually devoted to one style and/or brand of item and they care about quality. Let's assume for a moment that GW uses this line of thought. That would mean that their target customer (the collector) is someone who is brand loyal, will assemble an army using only Citadel miniatures and perhaps paint that army using Citadel modeling supplies. Every businesses dream customer I would think and sentiments known to be expressed in GW's explanation of the HHHobby. And of course not everyone will be interested in accumulating models just to put on display, like most people they will want to put their amie(s) to use - they'll play the game as well.
Counter Point - Gamers are, in my experience, only interested in playing a game and to them it doesn't matter what models, terrain and/or aids are used or even if the models are painted (sometimes it does't even matter if they're assembled). They want to, at it's most basic sense of the the phrase, 'play a game' and nothing more.
As I always say, if GW target collectors why do they make only figures for a game that come in basic configurations outlined in the rules. Seems like they are a game company.
I was going to comment on his site, but you can't. I think his assumptions on Mr. Priestley's knowledge of the inner workings of GW is inaccurate, but the main point would be that these comments are getting more traction in the community.
I'm not surprised you can't comment, I suspect something that poorly informed and full of assumptions (as well as biased, but, hey, it is at least not ashamed to admit that) would attract comments that would make moderating them a full time job for several days.
GW has never had a Collector's Series, which, in my opinion would be qualified as a line of figures that stay in production, but are aimed at the collectors, so not needing game rules...
i would not define that as a Collector's Series, but just old minis...
i am trying to say that, for a company that is saying their demographic is collectors, they don't have a line that is aimed at collectors...
in my opinion, GW has always been a gaming company, regardless of what the top brass want to say...
i just happen to like collecting their minis...
sure, their LE stuff makes people want to buy it before it goes OOP, but LE and a Collector's Series means two different things to me...
like migooo said in the first post i quoted, and i agree whith him, a line of Inquisitor scale minis, that were available in a non-limited edition manner, would definitely qualify as pure collector's minis...
i think that GW is using the talk of their "collectors" demographic to justify the limited nature of some of their product runs...
they still produce a game, and rules for their minis...
the only 28mm models that where sold in a GW store without rules, as far as i can remember, were limited edition runs like the Gotrek & Friends set...
even as a collector, i think GW's line of "we are a company aimed at collectors" is rubbish...
WFB & 40K is a game, and the majority of the customers are gamers...
Kirby can spout whatever nonsense he wants to...
as long as they keep producing minis i want to paint, i will buy them...
i am just sad to see so many gamers feel marginalized and driven away, and have no desire to see army books with cool art and fiction go away, simply because the rules don't have any use to me...
the day they drop the rules is the day they become a line for collectors, but i wouldn't want to see that happen...
insaniak wrote: It was a game with a lot of potential, but that just didn't go anywhere because GW didn't adequately support it.
Which can be said for a lot of their specialist games.
Yeah, Aeronautica Imperialis was an excellent demonstration of how to write elegant rules that still capture the important aspects of the real thing and include plenty of strategic depth. GW had X-Wing with IMO better rules before FFG even dreamed of making a miniatures game. And yet they invested absolutely no effort into marketing the game, even to their own customers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jah-joshua wrote: i think that GW is using the talk of their "collectors" demographic to justify the limited nature of some of their product runs..
I think it's less about justifying limited editions and more of an excuse for their failure to write decent rules. If GW can portray themselves as a product for "collectors" then they can dismiss all of the people complaining about the rules and tell the investors that gamers aren't part of their business model. If they admit that they're a game company then they have to face criticism of their rules and investors that might want to know why their target market is so eagerly leaving GW and buying games from their competition.
insaniak wrote: It was a game with a lot of potential, but that just didn't go anywhere because GW didn't adequately support it.
Which can be said for a lot of their specialist games.
Moreso for Inquisitor than the others, though, because Inquisitor was the one that actually needed that support in order to be seen as a complete game. The other Specialist games were at least all playable straight out of the box.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jah-joshua wrote: i would not define that as a Collector's Series, but just old minis...
GW obviously disagree with you, as they labelled them as 'Collector's Series' on the bottom of the blister...
i am trying to say that, for a company that is saying their demographic is collectors, they don't have a line that is aimed at collectors...
They're not branded as being aimed at collectors, but more and more of their models are being constructed with little regard for how well they would function as gaming miniatures... Reference the current trend for gigantic models balancing on tiny (plastic) contact points.
the only 28mm models that where sold in a GW store without rules, as far as i can remember, were limited edition runs like the Gotrek & Friends set...
Minor nitpick... The Felix and Gotrek set wasn't 28mm.
They were larger scale miniatures that were intended solely for the shelf, not for WHFB.
insaniak wrote: GW obviously disagree with you, as they labelled them as 'Collector's Series' on the bottom of the blister...
But was that legitimately producing a series aimed at collectors, or was it just re-labeling some extra inventory from the 1980s with something a little more appealing than "all that old stuff that looks terrible next to the new models".
i have the set, Insaniak, and to say that they are a larger scale, is a very minor nit-pick...
they barely qualify as 32mm...
they are certainly not as big as Studio McVey's 40mm LE's...
they are only very slightly larger than the stock Gotrek & Felix models...
of course i know that the LE set was not intended for WFB, which is why i mentioned that they were released without rules...
my point is, GW can say what they want, but as a collector, i have always seen GW as a gaming company who's minis i happen like to collecting...
99% of their models have rules, and thus are gaming minis in my book...
gamers saying that GW is aimed at collectors, and collectors saying it is a gaming company, just goes to show how rudderless GW has become over the last few years...
i have a vested interest in GW being a viable gaming company, since the majority of my clients use my painted minis on the gaming table...
the more gamers that are driven away, the smaller my client pool gets for painted GW minis...
i love GW, and don't have anything bad to say about them, but i am sad to see the current state of the public's perception of the company...
i love getting paid to paint Space Marines!!!
I think it's less about justifying limited editions and more of an excuse for their failure to write decent rules. If GW can portray themselves as a product for "collectors" then they can dismiss all of the people complaining about the rules and tell the investors that gamers aren't part of their business model. If they admit that they're a game company then they have to face criticism of their rules and investors that might want to know why their target market is so eagerly leaving GW and buying games from their competition.
I think that's it exactly, it's like the whole "shared experience" bs and trying to dress up a turn based table top wargame as some incredibly dry and abstract rpg to safely position one's self in the ever shifting subjective ether of what individuals may describe as "fun".
jah-joshua wrote: i have the set, Insaniak, and to say that they are a larger scale, is a very minor nit-pick...
they barely qualify as 32mm...
they are certainly not as big as Studio McVey's 40mm LE's...
they are only very slightly larger than the stock Gotrek & Felix models...
So, er... what you're saying is that they're a larger scale?
Is it really necessary to link to every other website that posts this? There's plenty of discussion right here. If bloggers want to join in the discussion with those here, they're welcome to climb aboard and do so.
I for one can't wait to see priceless comments that will be generated when the internet bares witness to games workshop being defended from rick priestly by the pale paladins out there. Corporations are people my friend.
Rick priestly managed to crack a joke about someone running back into a burning building to grab their stash and I think that's awesome. Now to keep things on track, let's wildly speculate as to the identity of said individual, my money's on jervis.
@Insaniak: what i'm saying is this discussion is incredibly pedantic...
i am sorry i said 28mm instead of 32mm...
i am not even sure what scale a standard mini from GW is anymore, with the scale creep over the years...
when i started collecting the models in 1985, i believe they were called 25mm...
what are they officially called now???
has GW even said???
i don't know...
i agreed the Gotrek & Friends set was slightly larger...
i said they were released without rules, agreeing that they were not meant for the gaming table, and obviously aimed at collectors...
i said, as a collector, i bought them...
what is the point that you are trying to make by picking apart my posts???
the clone wrote: i do think that it was a bit, i dunno, 'strange' to ask for 300000 pounds from the internet considering how little he seemed to have prepared
He did hire someone to sculpt his personal likeness for all posterity, so there is that.
Talk about vanity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Compel wrote: Inquisitor, like Warmaster, Mordheim, the Epic and Necromunda relaunch and others didn't even exist long enough to judge whether they tanked or not.
Jervis' last hurrah, trying to keep SG going. It's unfortunate they didn't make the big splash that Jervis needed to keep those lines going.
Compel wrote: Inquisitor, like Warmaster, Mordheim, the Epic and Necromunda relaunch and others didn't even exist long enough to judge whether they tanked or not.
Jervis' last hurrah, trying to keep SG going. It's unfortunate they didn't make the big splash that Jervis needed to keep those lines going.
In the avarice soaked board room of collector's workshop, there is no room for a shared experience that only requires a modest investment in a small "collection" of models. Anyone ever try and play space hulk in a gw after the initial release? Yeah...
I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection. Game pieces can only be copyrighted for so long. Rules for a game can't be copyrighted at all (Which is why it's silly that we can't post actual rules text or point cost on this forum, THEY AREN'T SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT LAWS BECAUSE THEY ARE RULES FOR A GAME!) If GW says over and over again that the models are "collectible" rather than labeling them as simply game pieces, they can use those years of (totally BS) quotes from their own company in court. I have talked to both managers of the local GW about the whole gamer vs collector thing. They both said that out of 50 or so regular customers (people they know on a first name basis who come in and actually spend money), at least 40 are primarily gamers. Then there's 5-7 who primarily paint and don't play much. The remaining few buy a lot of black library novels but don't buy models very often, or ever. Also, the average gamer has 30-100 tactical marines, 6-8 pods or rhinos, etc laying around. Someone who is simply a collector will most likely just buy 1 kit. Gamers most likely outnumber collectors and are far more profitable, so I'm not sure why GW has developed this insistence on making collectors items.
I get the impression allot of people don't like to be labelled collectors rather than gamers?
I've been collecting miniatures to game with for 25 years and I don't get it.
Is most of this discussion some sort of churlish elitism thing? Like the classic "my music is better than your music" serioz bidnezz that many 16-25 year old like to do?
notprop wrote: I get the impression allot of people don't like to be labelled collectors rather than gamers?
I've been collecting miniatures to game with for 25 years and I don't get it.
Is most of this discussion some sort of churlish elitism thing? Like the classic "my music is better than your music" serioz bidnezz that many 16-25 year old like to do?
No, it's not elitism at all. People aren't unhappy about being told they collect miniatures, they're unhappy with GW's decision to label their target market collectors and not gamers. And it's insult to injury that GW is doing it entirely as an excuse for why they're failing so badly at the gaming aspect of the hobby.
As more of a collector/painter I'm only interested in small numbers of figures and character models. I used to have armies when I played with armies. Buying piles of rank and file troops at their prices is s bit of an ask, there's just no purpose. Also collectors want quality, GW should have stuck with metal or used a much higher quality resin substitute.
notprop wrote: I get the impression allot of people don't like to be labelled collectors rather than gamers?
I've been collecting miniatures to game with for 25 years and I don't get it.
Is most of this discussion some sort of churlish elitism thing? Like the classic "my music is better than your music" serioz bidnezz that many 16-25 year old like to do?
No, it's not elitism at all. People aren't unhappy about being told they collect miniatures, they're unhappy with GW's decision to label their target market collectors and not gamers. And it's insult to injury that GW is doing it entirely as an excuse for why they're failing so badly at the gaming aspect of the hobby.
So just churlish then?
There is little to no difference between the two "titles", so getting insulted/injured because GW uses a particular terminology does seem like a whole waste of effort to me.
notprop wrote: There is little to no difference between the two "titles", so getting insulted/injured because GW uses a particular terminology does seem like a whole waste of effort to me.
Except, again, it's not about the title, it's about the reason for the title. GW isn't just saying "people collect our miniatures", they're saying "if you care about the fact that we're selling you terrible rules for $50 you aren't welcome in the GW™ Hobby™".
I consider myself a collector first and gamer second, that is why i don't understand jah that he only returns to his space marines to paint, got a lot from different makers mostly SF stuff and i am painting them all.
But because i am a collector, i don't need 6 imperial knights, only the bare necessities to field. and because i am a collectors i pass on some designs, i hated the design of those bulky contemptor thingies or what they are called and use models from different company as substitute, for company that says they are the best in plastic mini's they don't understand their collecting clientele, there is so much stuff out there that is as good as (or better) in quality as GW.
That's why I think GWs definition of collector is:
'teenage kid who buys big box of shininess because it looks shiny and never gets round to assembling them, but buys more boxes of the latest shiny thing release anyhow, until his Christmas and 2 birthdays are over.'
I have a problem with them labeling their customer base as collectors to excuse TERRIBLE rules that also happen to be extremely overpriced. The name of the damn company is GAMES Workshop, not Collectors Workshop. That's like buying a corvette, driving it 100mph, the engine blows, and the dealer tells you it wasn't supposed to be driven like that, just sit in the garage and look cool. There are plenty of companies out there making more detailed models for far less money if I wanted to build and paint something just to sit on a shelf and collect dust. If you're going to make rules, constantly update them and charge $108 minimum for 1 army for them, they should at least be playable without massive house ruling or endless arguments. GW has a "collectible" model division, it's called Forge World. If they just want to make collectible models, the rules should be free to download or they should license them out to someone else that's actually capable of writing a decent ruleset.
notprop wrote: There is little to no difference between the two "titles", so getting insulted/injured because GW uses a particular terminology does seem like a whole waste of effort to me.
Except, again, it's not about the title, it's about the reason for the title. GW isn't just saying "people collect our miniatures", they're saying "if you care about the fact that we're selling you terrible rules for $50 you aren't welcome in the GW™ Hobby™".
That's exactly it. I don't mind being called a collector. My lead mountain will testify to that. I dislike the idea that I can't collect mini's and play a good game with them, because it's for collectors. If it's a collectors range, why are there even rules?
My action figure collecting friend doesn't have rules for his Marvel collection.
Toofast wrote: I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection. Game pieces can only be copyrighted for so long. Rules for a game can't be copyrighted at all (Which is why it's silly that we can't post actual rules text or point cost on this forum, THEY AREN'T SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT LAWS BECAUSE THEY ARE RULES FOR A GAME!)
There are a couple of misconceptions here.
The game pieces vs collectibles is actually down to an argument that came up in the Chapterhouse trial that toys shouldn't be classed as artworks due to their mass-produced nature, and so wouldn't be covered by copyright. Collectibles, on the other hand, are.
As for the game rules, the actual text of the rule is covered by copyright just like any other piece of writing. It's the mechanics of the rules that aren't covered by copyright.
So writing identical rules mechanics in your own words would not be a breach of copyright. Posting GW's written rules potentially is.
Jehan-reznor wrote: I consider myself a collector first and gamer second, that is why i don't understand jah that he only returns to his space marines to paint, got a lot from different makers mostly SF stuff and i am painting them all.
But because i am a collector, i don't need 6 imperial knights, only the bare necessities to field. and because i am a collectors i pass on some designs, i hated the design of those bulky contemptor thingies or what they are called and use models from different company as substitute, for company that says they are the best in plastic mini's they don't understand their collecting clientele, there is so much stuff out there that is as good as (or better) in quality as GW.
i guess i did not make myself very clear...
have a look in my gallery to see the variety of minis that i paint...
i have painted for four different companies in the industry, and collect minis from almost every company on the market...
i am saying that what inspires me most are Space Marines...
i love their art, fiction, and minis more than any other range...
i don't know why they appeal to me more than other models, settings, or fictional characters, they just do...
there are many more inspiring Chapter schemes that i have yet to paint...
maybe one day i will have gotten it out of my system, but for now, i daydream about all of the Chapters' schemes, and Marine minis, that i haven't painted yet...
on top of that, 90% of my clients hire me to paint Space Marines...
it's a win-win for me...
who makes a better plastic Space Marine than GW???
insaniak wrote: GW obviously disagree with you, as they labelled them as 'Collector's Series' on the bottom of the blister...
But was that legitimately producing a series aimed at collectors, or was it just re-labeling some extra inventory from the 1980s with something a little more appealing than "all that old stuff that looks terrible next to the new models".
Given how low wastage metal casting is (almost 0%) it must have been a genuine attempt, otherwise they would have thrown the metal back in the pot and cast something else.
jah-joshua wrote:
who makes a better plastic Space Marine than GW???
I guess none, FW on the other hand makes really great resin space marines that do not look like a moving Iconostasis, other companies make really nice futuristic powered armoured troopers, but admittedly they do not have the the iconic shape of a space marine.
Personally I do not like GW space marines any more, FW has the right idea on what they should look like (speaking of the rank and file models because their characters are as overboard as the regular line), but the design needs a modern era update for my taste.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Given how low wastage metal casting is (almost 0%) it must have been a genuine attempt, otherwise they would have thrown the metal back in the pot and cast something else.
What I mean is that they didn't take a look at the collector market, ask themselves "what would these people want", and produce a product line that met those desires. They just took a bunch of models that had previously been released as the same kind of game pieces as all of their other game pieces and stuck a "collectors" label on them. Yeah, it probably had at least some benefit for collectors who wanted to maintain access to older sculpts that could have been considered obsolete, but it wasn't a serious investment in the "collector" market.
Toofast wrote: I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection. Game pieces can only be copyrighted for so long. Rules for a game can't be copyrighted at all (Which is why it's silly that we can't post actual rules text or point cost on this forum, THEY AREN'T SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT LAWS BECAUSE THEY ARE RULES FOR A GAME!) If GW says over and over again that the models are "collectible" rather than labeling them as simply game pieces, they can use those years of (totally BS) quotes from their own company in court. I have talked to both managers of the local GW about the whole gamer vs collector thing. They both said that out of 50 or so regular customers (people they know on a first name basis who come in and actually spend money), at least 40 are primarily gamers. Then there's 5-7 who primarily paint and don't play much. The remaining few buy a lot of black library novels but don't buy models very often, or ever. Also, the average gamer has 30-100 tactical marines, 6-8 pods or rhinos, etc laying around. Someone who is simply a collector will most likely just buy 1 kit. Gamers most likely outnumber collectors and are far more profitable, so I'm not sure why GW has developed this insistence on making collectors items.
I think this related to Design Rights law in the UK, and if so they're still getting comically terrible legal advice because they can say "collectors" as much as they want, whether something will fall under that definition if they're ever challenged in a UK court will be established based on the facts, and the facts are straightforward: GW mass-produces kits in plastic, their stores actively promote the sale of those models in the context of a game, and specifically encourage and target teen kids. A judge will take one look at GW and conclude "Toys, Design Rights apply, your Space Marine designs are now public domain, bugger off I have important things to rule on".
@PsychoticStorm: i love my Forge World Marines, for sure ...
Jehan-reznor was speaking of GW touting their plastics as the best in the business, which was why i asked the question...
if i had to choose between GW plastics, and FW resins, i would choose FW every time...
i am a fan of what you call the overboard characters, though...
the Primarchs and 30K character models are perfect for my taste, as well as the 40K Marine special characters...
mkiv and mkv armor from FW are really cool, too...
the bolter variants, the melee weapon kits...i could go on and on
i am a huge fan of Infinity, and many other lines of minis, so it is not as if i am a slave to one type of model...
unfortunately, painted Infinity minis don't sell as well as painted Marines, so i don't get to paint them as much as i would like to...
this is my livelyhood, so i have to go where the money is...
i consider myself lucky that my favorite plastic minis also happen to be my best earners...
if Infinity models did well enough to pay the bills, i would be happy with that, but i would still paint Marines on the side...
instead i make a living from Marines, and paint the odd Infinity mini on the side...
on the other hand, i am working on a few Finecast Marines for a commission right now, and the quality is horrible...
i can honestly say that i will not be buying any Finecast Marines for myself...
so it is not as if i am a blind devotee of GW...
they only get my money when i really like what they produce, like the plastic Marine infantry...
Jehan-reznor wrote: I consider myself a collector first and gamer second, that is why i don't understand jah that he only returns to his space marines to paint, got a lot from different makers mostly SF stuff and i am painting them all.
But because i am a collector, i don't need 6 imperial knights, only the bare necessities to field. and because i am a collectors i pass on some designs, i hated the design of those bulky contemptor thingies or what they are called and use models from different company as substitute, for company that says they are the best in plastic mini's they don't understand their collecting clientele, there is so much stuff out there that is as good as (or better) in quality as GW.
i guess i did not make myself very clear...
have a look in my gallery to see the variety of minis that i paint...
i have painted for four different companies in the industry, and collect minis from almost every company on the market...
i am saying that what inspires me most are Space Marines...
i love their art, fiction, and minis more than any other range...
i don't know why they appeal to me more than other models, settings, or fictional characters, they just do...
there are many more inspiring Chapter schemes that i have yet to paint...
maybe one day i will have gotten it out of my system, but for now, i daydream about all of the Chapters' schemes, and Marine minis, that i haven't painted yet...
on top of that, 90% of my clients hire me to paint Space Marines...
it's a win-win for me...
who makes a better plastic Space Marine than GW???
cheers
jah
If that's what you enjoy, that's what you enjoy. Personally I loved the Big hat Chaos Dwarfs and Squats , however most people seem to have a strong dislike to them.
Now with the abomination that 9th is becoming they will never ever return (big hats) so the company can make more Space Marines.
I used to play but now I just try to make themed stuff. My Skaven are Undersea Pirates, my Carnival of Chaos are multi God themed ( which is my latest project) I was going to make an Amazon Army or a khornate SoB using Valkia at one point but I just don't have the heart. And over 12 pounds just to make Rank and file troops seems excessive.
@migooo: i hear you, man...
i have a bunch of Squats, and painted many a Big Hat for a friend's army...
i actually started collecting minis with a blister pack of the original Chaos Dwarfs, before Big Hats, back in 1985...
i like the short, bearded bastards, being bearded, and not very tall myself...
i like the themes...
have you posted picks of your undersea Skaven???
that sounds very cool...
i was sad that Valkia came out in Finecast only:(...
i really liked her since reading her description when she first appeared in the Chaos Army Book, and loved her novel...
i have been thinking about making a plastic version of her with the DE Scourge and Bloodletter kits...
one day i will get the free time to do it!!!
jah-joshua wrote: @migooo: i hear you, man...
i have a bunch of Squats, and painted many a Big Hat for a friend's army...
i actually started collecting minis with a blister pack of the original Chaos Dwarfs, before Big Hats, back in 1985...
i like the short, bearded bastards, being bearded, and not very tall myself...
i like the themes...
have you posted picks of your undersea Skaven???
that sounds very cool...
i was sad that Valkia came out in Finecast only:(...
i really liked her since reading her description when she first appeared in the Chaos Army Book, and loved her novel...
i have been thinking about making a plastic version of her with the DE Scourge and Bloodletter kits...
one day i will get the free time to do it!!!
cheers
jah
Ill certainly post some if you're interested, I like the way you do lava and metals if I may could I ask for some pointers?
Her novel was fantastic. Truly was. Haha were both not very tall, however no beard here.
I honestly wonder what Ian Livingstone thinks of all this.
It has felt, for the last few years, like the game has been getting watered down with each version. I get that they may want to make one balanced version for everyone and then focus on models, but I think that they would end up losing a very large block of customers. Everyone I know, who loves the model making, loves it because of the look once fielded. Without the game there is no draw to the models for me. This may be a slightly off topic point, but I also feel like the fluff and the actual game grow apart when they drop a new codex. That's just an opinion and it was formed around my main army (CSM) so take it for what it is I guess.
Toofast wrote: I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection. Game pieces can only be copyrighted for so long. Rules for a game can't be copyrighted at all (Which is why it's silly that we can't post actual rules text or point cost on this forum, THEY AREN'T SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT LAWS BECAUSE THEY ARE RULES FOR A GAME!) If GW says over and over again that the models are "collectible" rather than labeling them as simply game pieces, they can use those years of (totally BS) quotes from their own company in court. I have talked to both managers of the local GW about the whole gamer vs collector thing. They both said that out of 50 or so regular customers (people they know on a first name basis who come in and actually spend money), at least 40 are primarily gamers. Then there's 5-7 who primarily paint and don't play much. The remaining few buy a lot of black library novels but don't buy models very often, or ever. Also, the average gamer has 30-100 tactical marines, 6-8 pods or rhinos, etc laying around. Someone who is simply a collector will most likely just buy 1 kit. Gamers most likely outnumber collectors and are far more profitable, so I'm not sure why GW has developed this insistence on making collectors items.
This is fine idea, but statements about 'collectors' pieces can't really compete with 25 years of using the word "toys" to describe the products. The company is called Games Workshop.
I am not saying you are wrong, merely that if you are right it is a ridiculous plan.
Toofast wrote: I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection. Game pieces can only be copyrighted for so long. Rules for a game can't be copyrighted at all (Which is why it's silly that we can't post actual rules text or point cost on this forum, THEY AREN'T SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT LAWS BECAUSE THEY ARE RULES FOR A GAME!) If GW says over and over again that the models are "collectible" rather than labeling them as simply game pieces, they can use those years of (totally BS) quotes from their own company in court. I have talked to both managers of the local GW about the whole gamer vs collector thing. They both said that out of 50 or so regular customers (people they know on a first name basis who come in and actually spend money), at least 40 are primarily gamers. Then there's 5-7 who primarily paint and don't play much. The remaining few buy a lot of black library novels but don't buy models very often, or ever. Also, the average gamer has 30-100 tactical marines, 6-8 pods or rhinos, etc laying around. Someone who is simply a collector will most likely just buy 1 kit. Gamers most likely outnumber collectors and are far more profitable, so I'm not sure why GW has developed this insistence on making collectors items.
This is fine idea, but statements about 'collectors' pieces can't really compete with 25 years of using the word "toys" to describe the products. The company is called Games Workshop.
I am not saying you are wrong, merely that if you are right it is a ridiculous plan.
Ï thanked Rick Priestley for 40k personally once, just before i faced him in a game of Warmaster at a "Euro Get Together".
He gave me exactly the same answer: "no, thank you!".
But The Rogue Trader (1st edition 40k), was a different time and a different GW indeed. The game WAS important, but the miniatures were important too.
GW/Citadel had the best and above all most interesting miniatures and a game that i wanted to play. A perfect combination.
I have a lot of games.
But i have few miniatures that have no related game i play and i have no games and related miniatures of games i do not find good enough.
And GW has to watch for it that they still have a game...
Because without a game, the miniatures will not sell.
Toofast wrote: I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection.
That' a rather dubious stand, but it wouldn't surprise me. Thing is, unique sculpted shape *is* copyrightable, whether it's a game component or not. That's pretty much a given. Same with the rules language.
Generic model concepts and individual gaming mechanics are NOT copyrightable.
Toofast wrote: I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection. Game pieces can only be copyrighted for so long. Rules for a game can't be copyrighted at all (Which is why it's silly that we can't post actual rules text or point cost on this forum, THEY AREN'T SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT LAWS BECAUSE THEY ARE RULES FOR A GAME!) If GW says over and over again that the models are "collectible" rather than labeling them as simply game pieces, they can use those years of (totally BS) quotes from their own company in court. I have talked to both managers of the local GW about the whole gamer vs collector thing. They both said that out of 50 or so regular customers (people they know on a first name basis who come in and actually spend money), at least 40 are primarily gamers. Then there's 5-7 who primarily paint and don't play much. The remaining few buy a lot of black library novels but don't buy models very often, or ever. Also, the average gamer has 30-100 tactical marines, 6-8 pods or rhinos, etc laying around. Someone who is simply a collector will most likely just buy 1 kit. Gamers most likely outnumber collectors and are far more profitable, so I'm not sure why GW has developed this insistence on making collectors items.
This is fine idea, but statements about 'collectors' pieces can't really compete with 25 years of using the word "toys" to describe the products. The company is called Games Workshop.
I am not saying you are wrong, merely that if you are right it is a ridiculous plan.
Maybe it's why there Re branding it to Warhammer.
My point is that they can re-brand all they want, but just calling your products "collectibles" when you have called them "toys" for 25 years, and when you are still selling them as game pieces, and when your company is still called Games Workshop, is going to look like you are slinging BS. This is even more greatly undermined by the fact that GW has started including rules packaged with its model kits. So when the customer buys the product, the customer is literally paying for game rules. How can you call that a "collectible" with a straight face in a court of law.
'So let me get this straight, Mr. Jones. You sell a range of game-related products. You sell a range of miniature figurines that you direct customers to use in connection with your game-related products. You include game rules in the packaging with your miniature figurines. You separately sell a line of miniature figurines that you specifically label as "collectible," and yet you want me to believe that the primary function of this product is not as a game piece?'
If GW stopped developing rules for its products, then it would have an argument to make. Until then, GW is going to have a rough go of it in any UK-based court battle.
But at the end of the day, the bigger problem GW has with respect to UK law is mass-production. Once you mass-produce something in the UK it generally qualifies as an industrial design...because...you know...it is the product of industrial manufacture.
Toofast wrote: I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection.
That' a rather dubious stand, but it wouldn't surprise me. Thing is, unique sculpted shape *is* copyrightable, whether it's a game component or not. That's pretty much a given. Same with the rules language.
Generic model concepts and individual gaming mechanics are NOT copyrightable.
That's the thing though, not if a UK court rules their products are a mass-produced product(which they are), then they would fall under Design Rights NOT "copyright"(which would only protect the actual design documents, and any specific examples of art or literature that are part of the same product as the design), and Design Rights only last for a few years after which time the design can be used freely by anyone. Space Marines and all their subtypes, Orks, Eldar, Tyranids; all derivatives of designs created by GW more than 15 years ago and so under DR unprotectable. Not just broad concepts like "Space Marine", but the actual physical design of GW's Space Marine armours, the various specific alien races, weapon designs etc etc. Of course it would have to be taken to court in the UK to get an actual ruling that they do fall under DR...
Toofast wrote: I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection.
That' a rather dubious stand, but it wouldn't surprise me. Thing is, unique sculpted shape *is* copyrightable, whether it's a game component or not. That's pretty much a given. Same with the rules language.
Generic model concepts and individual gaming mechanics are NOT copyrightable.
Nope. Not in the United Kingdom.
Ninja'd by Yodhrin. But to add to what Yodhrin said, you don't really have to take it to a UK court. Chapterhouse took it to a US court, which decided to apply US law. However, the federal appellate courts in the US are split on this issue, i.e. there have been decisions at the appellate level that have gone both ways.
There is a persuasive expert report readily available on the public record in a US court case. And note that Judge Kennelly side-stepped the issue by applying US law as opposed to UK law. In other words, he decided a choice of law issue as opposed to ruling that the asserted works were protectable under copyright in the UK. In short, the issue is far from dead even in US federal court.
i am myself more of a collector than a player but playing is still think playing is still important. one thing i wish gw would do is to put more unique and fun amount of variation in the models (specifically space marines) and lower prices
jah-joshua wrote:
i am just sad to see so many gamers feel marginalized and driven away...
Most are driven away by a toxic community.
I personally, barely come to Dakka anymore because I can no longer tolerate the constant negativity. It's as if the GW Hobby is, according to the Dakka community, to hate on GW as much as possible. I picture it plainly... Two Dakka posters meet up for a game, pull their armies out of the case, deploy and then proceed to spend the next 2 hours whining & bitching about GW.
Toofast wrote:I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection. Game pieces can only be copyrighted for so long.
I can get behind this reasoning - It's logical and it makes sense.
notprop wrote:I get the impression allot of people don't like to be labelled collectors rather than gamers?
I think this is 99.9% of the crescendo of whining & bitching in this thread.
On a side note...
Toofast wrote:That's like buying a corvette, driving it 100mph, the engine blows, and the dealer tells you it wasn't supposed to be driven like that, just sit in the garage and look cool.
This actually happens. A LOT! Too frequently for comfort in fact. I personally know a few people that have bought high end sports cars where the motor's have blown and the manufacturer literally told them "The car isn't meant to be driven in xyz fashion" I know of a 2009 Subaru WRX STi, a 2010 Subaru WRX STi, a 2014 Ford Shelby GT-500 and a 2014 Nissan GT-R where this happened. Subaru, eventually helped albeit very little, but the GT-500 and GT-R went to litigation.
jah-joshua wrote:
i am just sad to see so many gamers feel marginalized and driven away...
Most are driven away by a toxic community.
I personally, barely come to Dakka anymore because I can no longer tolerate the constant negativity. It's as if the GW Hobby is, according to the Dakka community, to hate on GW as much as possible. I picture it plainly... Two Dakka posters meet up for a game, pull their armies out of the case, deploy and then proceed to spend the next 2 hours whining & bitching about GW.
I don't find Dakka toxic at all, although I don't post in the GW sections of the forum so no idea at all what those are like.
There are a few individuals who would complain if the ghost of HG Wells came down from heaven and presented them with mana in 28mm form, for free, but then if you spend any time on here at all you recognise that and hey that's what the ignore feature is for.
It's become a really wide-reaching, multi-system forum here. You can get news on the latest stuff coming along, and the Infinity and historical sections are really cool. Painting and modelling sections are great as well (although, an issue from my perspective is that you have to often go sifting through to find threads that aren't space marines!)
jah-joshua wrote:
i am just sad to see so many gamers feel marginalized and driven away...
Most are driven away by a toxic community.
I personally, barely come to Dakka anymore because I can no longer tolerate the constant negativity. It's as if the GW Hobby is, according to the Dakka community, to hate on GW as much as possible. I picture it plainly... Two Dakka posters meet up for a game, pull their armies out of the case, deploy and then proceed to spend the next 2 hours whining & bitching about GW.
Obviously, experiences will vary... But in 20 years of playing, I've known guys to quit because of GW's prices, because of edition changes, because they got sick of the patchy state of the rules, because they just got bored with it, because they didn't have the time to play, and because of GW's business practices.
I've never met anyone who quit because people were complaining about GW on Dakka...
@Oni.
Well perhaps if GW plc actually communicated with its customers in a meaningful way.The way all of its competitors do, may be there would not be so much negative feeling to wards GW plc corporate management?
If they felt that their customers were worth listening to,and conducted proper market research , to grow their market share, like their competitors do.
They would appeal to a much larger market, and not have to raise prices to compensate for falling sales volumes year after year.
But while the man in charge of GW plc believes 'his customers' are wiling to pay any price for any thing GW plc makes , no matter what the price. because GW plc makes it.
Sales volumes will continue to fall, retail prices will continue to rise , and people who actually care about the long term future of GW plc and the games they make, will continue to be concerned.
When all the evidence from GW plc financial reports are showing GW plc is loosing market share, sales volumes and profit ,in a growing market.
When they had the best start and the most resources and capital to invest.
Just wallet raping the few remaining customers to pay Tom Kirby another few million pounds in share bonuses before he retires,is difficult to put a positive spin on.IMO.
Can you link to a post where some one was just spouting irrational and unsupported negativity towards GW ?
As most of the posts I have read have been mostly constructive critique, what they think GW is getting wrong, and what they could do to fix it.
The people trying to defend GW plc seem to work on the rather simple view, I like it and can afford it , so what is the problem?
(Even though fewer and fewer people find enough value for money in GW products, to buy them year after year.)
I find very little negativity on Dakka Dakka forums that have nothing to do with GW 'rules' or 'general shenanigans'.
And the actions of GW plc corporate management drives away far more actual and potential GW customers , than any negative comments on any particular web site.
jah-joshua wrote:
i am just sad to see so many gamers feel marginalized and driven away...
Most are driven away by a toxic community.
I personally, barely come to Dakka anymore because I can no longer tolerate the constant negativity. It's as if the GW Hobby is, according to the Dakka community, to hate on GW as much as possible. I picture it plainly... Two Dakka posters meet up for a game, pull their armies out of the case, deploy and then proceed to spend the next 2 hours whining & bitching about GW.
Spoiler:
Toofast wrote:I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection. Game pieces can only be copyrighted for so long.
I can get behind this reasoning - It's logical and it makes sense.
notprop wrote:I get the impression allot of people don't like to be labelled collectors rather than gamers?
I think this is 99.9% of the crescendo of whining & bitching in this thread.
On a side note...
Toofast wrote:That's like buying a corvette, driving it 100mph, the engine blows, and the dealer tells you it wasn't supposed to be driven like that, just sit in the garage and look cool.
This actually happens. A LOT! Too frequently for comfort in fact. I personally know a few people that have bought high end sports cars where the motor's have blown and the manufacturer literally told them "The car isn't meant to be driven in xyz fashion" I know of a 2009 Subaru WRX STi, a 2010 Subaru WRX STi, a 2014 Ford Shelby GT-500 and a 2014 Nissan GT-R where this happened. Subaru, eventually helped albeit very little, but the GT-500 and GT-R went to litigation.
Well, it's a well understood phenomena that people tend to seek out sources of information that agree with their own preconceptions about a subject, so I assume you spend a lot of time on Warseer other sites we're not supposed to be mean about?
jah-joshua wrote:
i am just sad to see so many gamers feel marginalized and driven away...
Most are driven away by a toxic community.
I personally, barely come to Dakka anymore because I can no longer tolerate the constant negativity. It's as if the GW Hobby is, according to the Dakka community, to hate on GW as much as possible. I picture it plainly... Two Dakka posters meet up for a game, pull their armies out of the case, deploy and then proceed to spend the next 2 hours whining & bitching about GW.
Obviously, experiences will vary... But in 20 years of playing, I've known guys to quit because of GW's prices, because of edition changes, because they got sick of the patchy state of the rules, because they just got bored with it, because they didn't have the time to play, and because of GW's business practices.
I've never met anyone who quit because people were complaining about GW on Dakka...
I agree and I've seen the same, but we're not discussing those points specifically. My comment is based more in generality, but I do know people who have quit because they bought into the negative diatribe on Dakka and on a side note, a price increase does not require one to quit.
I find that online forums can be a catalyst for negativity and hate, it's influx of new users traumatically bonding with it's existing user base; falsely taking on their views and opinions of negativity because it's all they're exposed to - this can happen within a gaming community too (the old Dice Like Thunder podcast is a perfect example). I've watched it happen more than once; it's disappointing, sad and infuriating all at the same time. Take for example fresh new players who say they dislike Ultramarines... Ask them why they dislike Ultramarines; and if they manage to give you an answer I can almost guarantee that answer will be nothing more than regurgitated drivel they heard from another person or read on a forum - new players have not yet developed enough within the hobby to formulate such a negative opinion. If one reads or hears hatefulness towards GW enough, eventually they will start to believe it themselves. It's akin to propaganda.
...but I don't care to exhaust any additional time and energy on this post. The bottom line here is that there needs to be a fundamental change in the community as a whole.
There is no hate, other than in a minority of individuals, hate implies a certain lack of rationality.
"It's too expensive for me."
Is not irrational.
"I find the games just aren't fun because the rules mean I can't have a fair game."
Is not irrational.
"I love the universes GW have created, and I'm frustrated that their actions seem to actively impair my ability to enjoy them."
Is not irrational.
Blaming the community for the reactions created by GW is utterly, utterly wrong.
You can also counter it by looking at the things that GW does well, praise is often just as forthcoming as condemnation, it is just that it happens much less often.
...but I don't care to exhaust any additional time and energy on this post. The bottom line here is that there needs to be a fundamental change in the community as a whole.
Oh the positivity... complaining about complaining does not make a positive. Generalizing about the entirety of the dakka community while lamenting "propaganda" seems pretty weak sauce.
Lanrak wrote:@Oni.
Well perhaps if GW plc actually communicated with its customers in a meaningful way.The way all of its competitors do, may be there would not be so much negative feeling to wards GW plc corporate management?
If they felt that their customers were worth listening to,and conducted proper market research , to grow their market share, like their competitors do.
They would appeal to a much larger market, and not have to raise prices to compensate for falling sales volumes year after year.
But while the man in charge of GW plc believes 'his customers' are wiling to pay any price for any thing GW plc makes , no matter what the price. because GW plc makes it.
Sales volumes will continue to fall, retail prices will continue to rise , and people who actually care about the long term future of GW plc and the games they make, will continue to be concerned.
When all the evidence from GW plc financial reports are showing GW plc is loosing market share, sales volumes and profit ,in a growing market.
When they had the best start and the most resources and capital to invest.
Just wallet raping the few remaining customers to pay Tom Kirby another few million pounds in share bonuses before he retires,is difficult to put a positive spin on.IMO.
Can you link to a post where some one was just spouting irrational and unsupported negativity towards GW ?
As most of the posts I have read have been mostly constructive critique, what they think GW is getting wrong, and what they could do to fix it.
The people trying to defend GW plc seem to work on the rather simple view, I like it and can afford it , so what is the problem?
(Even though fewer and fewer people find enough value for money in GW products, to buy them year after year.)
I find very little negativity on Dakka Dakka forums that have nothing to do with GW 'rules' or 'general shenanigans'.
And the actions of GW plc corporate management drives away far more actual and potential GW customers , than any negative comments on any particular web site.
Very well constructed retort. Seriously. And I do not disagree. I find your statement "The people trying to defend GW plc seem to work on the rather simple view, I like it and can afford it , so what is the problem?" particularly interesting. The idea behind this statement as I see it, is a conflict that has been present in society since the very beginning. The 'have's' vs. the 'have not's'. This conversation topic will certainly digress into petty insults and name calling so we'll just leave it at that.
jah-joshua wrote:
i am just sad to see so many gamers feel marginalized and driven away...
Most are driven away by a toxic community.
I personally, barely come to Dakka anymore because I can no longer tolerate the constant negativity. It's as if the GW Hobby is, according to the Dakka community, to hate on GW as much as possible. I picture it plainly... Two Dakka posters meet up for a game, pull their armies out of the case, deploy and then proceed to spend the next 2 hours whining & bitching about GW.
Spoiler:
Toofast wrote:I have heard rumors that they are re branding their models as collectors items for IP protection. Game pieces can only be copyrighted for so long.
I can get behind this reasoning - It's logical and it makes sense.
notprop wrote:I get the impression allot of people don't like to be labelled collectors rather than gamers?
I think this is 99.9% of the crescendo of whining & bitching in this thread.
On a side note...
Toofast wrote:That's like buying a corvette, driving it 100mph, the engine blows, and the dealer tells you it wasn't supposed to be driven like that, just sit in the garage and look cool.
This actually happens. A LOT! Too frequently for comfort in fact. I personally know a few people that have bought high end sports cars where the motor's have blown and the manufacturer literally told them "The car isn't meant to be driven in xyz fashion" I know of a 2009 Subaru WRX STi, a 2010 Subaru WRX STi, a 2014 Ford Shelby GT-500 and a 2014 Nissan GT-R where this happened. Subaru, eventually helped albeit very little, but the GT-500 and GT-R went to litigation.
Well, it's a well understood phenomena that people tend to seek out sources of information that agree with their own preconceptions about a subject, so I assume you spend a lot of time on Warseer other sites we're not supposed to be mean about?
I agree with oni that the negativity towards GW can be stifling sometimes. It doesn't have to be someone ranting and raving irrationally. It's everything from conspiracy theories (they did this because they are corporate money-grubbers, etc) to constant back-and-forth sarcasm and joking about everything they do, to finding negative spins on every piece of GW news if at all possible. It's not always what you say, but how you say it, which very much applies to Azreal13's examples. Most people do not express themself in the neutral, measured way you present. Obviously this does not apply to every poster on here, far from it, but It fosters a certain climate for sure.
...but I don't care to exhaust any additional time and energy on this post. The bottom line here is that there needs to be a fundamental change in the community as a whole.
Oh the positivity... complaining about complaining does not make a positive. Generalizing about the entirety of the dakka community while lamenting "propaganda" seems pretty weak sauce.
Apparently I struck a chord with you. My comments hit a little too close to home for your liking? I'm being playful of course (and maybe just a little petty - all in good humor though I promise).
) but because after 20+ years enjoying the 
I knew someone who interned at SeaWorld with the hopes of working for a marine mammal organization afterward. They saw SeaWorld on her resume and asked "why the hell did you work for those people?". No job for her!
