This is a topic that I am sure if posted a lot, so forgive me if this sounds redundant, but where are we going next?
GW is falling slowly, but falling hard. Most of what I see among my local Warhammer 40k members is people trying to sell out of the hobby, get their money back and see where the hobby goes. Everything is up in the air. What I am asking is, what is going to happen? I know no one has a definitive answer, and it can only be speculation, but it seems like something that should be addressed. The cost is rising for the hobby, and from what I can tell, the player base is shrinking due to costs of competitive play. (Could be wrong on the second one.) The IP of "Warhammer" and it's variants are obviously not going to float into oblivion, and there are many companies that would try to snatch it. Would this change the entire game? Would our models be worth anything?
I am just very worried as I am somewhat concerned about playing. I have a few small forces, and there are times when I think to myself that I want to make a big, good army/list, but I just can't bring myself to put that much money into something I can't be sure will be worth anything a few months time. Many pro-painted models go for UNDER msrp on Ebay unless it is from a highly popular painter, and that is just crazy to me.
I wouldn't say that they are falling hard but they are suffering from shrinking revenue and are running out of things to cut to salvage their profit margins. They are still profitable but I suspect they will have more telling profit losses in the next 5 years unless they start attracting new blood. We shall see how AoS does but from what I've experiences it seems to have kind of fallen a bit flat after the initial hype (and infamy).
Company is not doomed by a long shot but their current course seems to be to continue to slowly shrink until they reach the critical point of either A They stop turning a profit and investors get frustrated enough to vote change leadership/direction or B They position themselves for a buyout. A bit of clever marketing, a better pricing model to get new players into the game, better community relations, and better rules would go a long way for GW.
Vankraken wrote:I wouldn't say that they are falling hard but they are suffering from shrinking revenue and are running out of things to cut to salvage their profit margins. They are still profitable but I suspect they will have more telling profit losses in the next 5 years unless they start attracting new blood. We shall see how AoS does but from what I've experiences it seems to have kind of fallen a bit flat after the initial hype (and infamy).
Company is not doomed by a long shot but their current course seems to be to continue to slowly shrink until they reach the critical point of either A They stop turning a profit and investors get frustrated enough to vote change leadership/direction or B They position themselves for a buyout. A bit of clever marketing, a better pricing model to get new players into the game, better community relations, and better rules would go a long way for GW.
The company's profits have been on a downward trend since 2013. They also refuse to do market research, and insist on believing that their customers care nothing for the wargame and only play it as an excuse to buy and paint models. Also, you have to take into account that a good chunk of what profits they do have is a result of them handing out the IP license to video game makers like it's candy.
They just had a leadership change, so I doubt that's going to happen again anytime soon. Attracting new players was what they tried to do with Age of Smegmar, which as you mentioned fell flat on its face. And while I agree that better community relations and a better ruleset would do a lot to make the company's products more palatable, I don't agree that they should make active efforts regarding new players specifically, this being as niche a hobby as it is. Better to devote those resources to salvaging the community already in place, and let them do the recruiting.
I know the global trend is down, but in my area we've had a really huge upsurge in new players. Our club has started an "escalation style" format as the norm, with new players mostly doing Kill Team and Combat Patrol, and vets more than willing to loan out 1000-1500 points to a newbie to try out units or builds. It's been a resounding success, and as a casual group club game with a large player base 40k is still pretty successful in my eyes.
the_scotsman wrote: I know the global trend is down, but in my area we've had a really huge upsurge in new players. Our club has started an "escalation style" format as the norm, with new players mostly doing Kill Team and Combat Patrol, and vets more than willing to loan out 1000-1500 points to a newbie to try out units or builds. It's been a resounding success, and as a casual group club game with a large player base 40k is still pretty successful in my eyes.
Anecdotal evidence from local areas isn't a sound way to determine the greater trend. Almost everyone who frequents my FLGS plays WMH
I know of perhaps a half dozen who actively play 40k, including myself. And if I didn't have friends playing 40k, and I wasn't a sucker for the lore, I'd probably be playing WMH myself.
asorel wrote: The company's profits have been on a downward trend since 2013. They also refuse to do market research, and insist on believing that their customers care nothing for the wargame and only play it as an excuse to buy and paint models. Also, you have to take into account that a good chunk of what profits they do have is a result of them handing out the IP license to video game makers like it's candy.
Also, let's not forget that their profits are down despite massive cost-cutting and higher prices. I suspect that the drop will be a long more dramatic once they run out of things to cut.
Frankly, I think everyone at GW who knew what they were doing have left or been fired. It's now run exclusively by people who don't understand their own product.
Profits aren't down but sales are down badly. Profits have been maintained by a combination of cost cutting and rapid price increases. Both these strategies will not work forever. There is a limit to how much cost can be cut, and there also is a limit to customers' appetite for ever increasiong prices.
AoS may reverse this trend. It's difficult to see 40K doing so because it was the release of 6th edition that marked the start of the decline and probably was the trigger, since it is by far the biggest selling game GW produce.
7th edition only doubled down on the strategy of 6th edition, (whackier rules, with more models, and higher prices) and we have seen sales continue to fall.
Bu the company is still profitable for the moment. It could sustain reduction in sales for several years more before there was a loss.
I find it hard to say where things will go in the next three years. AoS may recruit a large enough audience to compensate for the loss of Fantasy and continued reduction in 40K sales. I think it is more likely that revenues will stabilise at a lower but still profitable level.
GW may be able to turn 40K around. My gut feeling is they are worried. The appearance of a selection of £25 paperback codexes is a admission that prices are too high. This isn't the whole problem, though, and it doesn't really answer the price issue when paperback codexes used to be £15 and you didn't have to buy formations and so on separately.
I don't GW can possibly make enough from licensing shovelware game apps to turn the tide.
There are other things they can do, such as stocking a wider range of games, being nicer to FLGSs, and the like.
I don't see AoS saving GW. As mentioned before, the extremely niche nature of the hobby means that trying to appeal to noobs at the expense of the core userbase is ultimately self-defeating.
Firstly, Fantasy never came close to the popularity of 40k (in terms if overall investment, at least), and I can't see AoS improving on that.
Second, they were, at the very least, controversial - to the point where GW have driven away a good deal of existing fantasy players. Now, you could argue that new players will make up for this. My question would be why they'd start AoS in the first place. Whist free rules are nice, the model prices are still ludicrously high. Also, going back to those rules for a moment, it's not a good sign when rules are free and I still come away feeling ripped-off.
I just don't see what it has over, say, Warmachine - which is also a skirmish game, but one with rules that are leagues ahead. And, brace yourself, PP actually communicate with their customers - including releasing faqs in a timely manner(something GW seems to have given up on entirely).
Previously, you could have said:
- Character Customisation (but that's now gone)
- Lore (Possible, but probably less so after GW killed most of it)
- Ability to use larger armies (Again, possible, but the rules make such armies at best unwieldy, and at worst tedious time-sinks)
Obviously I could be wrong, but to me it just seems like GW have turned WH Fantasy into Warmahordes, but with rules that are orders of magnitude worse.
They've been stating for a while now that they're a miniatures company, where rules aren't a priority and aren't balanced. AoS being the culmination of these ideas.
This pushes part of the player (collector?!) base away, and GW aren't doing much if anything to replace them. They're cutting costs to try to generate more profit from each sale to make up for it - which can only work in the short term.
As a 40K player this approach has turned me off - the realisation that they're not interested in the rules (other than generating money from the occasional rehash). I suspect I'm not the only one whose enthusiasm for 40K has been dampened by the statements coming out of Nottingham and the AoS ruleset.
So, what would you guys do to save Warhammer(40k)?
GW do have some things going for them.
- Lot's of lore.
- The models are getting better and the new kits aren't too shabby.
- Still probably have the largest market share with 40k.
What's wrong?
- IMHO killing off the Old World like they did was a mistake.
- The prices are too damn high. And not only on the models.
- The rules suck. A lot.
- No communication with the customers.
I'd like to see them produce a good set of rules. Easy enough to understand for the casual gamer, but tight enough to allow tournament play.
Lower the cost of starting the hobby. Cheaper models and smaller starter armies.
Then go and sponsor some tournaments. With good coverage, get some hype going. Maybe look at how eSports is doing it and try to piggy back on their success? You could combine that with advancing the story line.
Right now competitive play is often seen as bad. But competitive play could probably really drive sales. Look at all the (virtual) crap eSports fans are buying. You just need rules that play fast enough and / or allow for enough tactical finesse to make for interesting to watch games.
Well, maybe tabletop is too much of a niche market to really make that work. But every nerd / gamer out there has already heard of warhammer and GW should be big enough to give it a try.
ghazkull wrote: So, what would you guys do to save Warhammer(40k)?
GW do have some things going for them.
- Lot's of lore.
- The models are getting better and the new kits aren't too shabby.
- Still probably have the largest market share with 40k.
The thing is, I'm not sure about the first 2 - especially where AoS is concerned.
In particular, those new Sigmar-Marines look bloody awful.
They have some nice models, but nice models don't distinguish them anymore. A lot of other companies also make nice models (many nicer than the GW equivalents), to the point where it just comes down to personal preference.
Also, I haven't read any of the AoS lore, but I've heard a lot of complaints about the writing standard being a lot worse than WH Fantasy.
ghazkull wrote: So, what would you guys do to save Warhammer(40k)?
GW do have some things going for them.
- Lot's of lore.
- The models are getting better and the new kits aren't too shabby.
- Still probably have the largest market share with 40k.
The thing is, I'm not sure about the first 2 - especially where AoS is concerned.
In particular, those new Sigmar-Marines look bloody awful.
They have some nice models, but nice models don't distinguish them anymore. A lot of other companies also make nice models (many nicer than the GW equivalents), to the point where it just comes down to personal preference.
Also, I haven't read any of the AoS lore, but I've heard a lot of complaints about the writing standard being a lot worse than WH Fantasy.
Yes, you're right. IMHOAoS was really bad lore wise. I'm also not a fan of the Sigmarines. But there are people who like them, so maybe I just have a different taste.
I didn't read much of the new fantasy lore, so I don't know if it's still salvageable. But 40k lore is still there. Would be nice to advance that in a fun way.
ghazkull wrote: So, what would you guys do to save Warhammer(40k)?
GW do have some things going for them.
- Lot's of lore.
- The models are getting better and the new kits aren't too shabby.
- Still probably have the largest market share with 40k.
The thing is, I'm not sure about the first 2 - especially where AoS is concerned.
In particular, those new Sigmar-Marines look bloody awful.
They have some nice models, but nice models don't distinguish them anymore. A lot of other companies also make nice models (many nicer than the GW equivalents), to the point where it just comes down to personal preference.
Also, I haven't read any of the AoS lore, but I've heard a lot of complaints about the writing standard being a lot worse than WH Fantasy.
I think a lot of the models are getting simpler now - less time spent on brand new designs, more time spent on releasing kits based on the CAD for existing models. Another cost cutting measure
Taken from share chat about GW "The dividend's great but the management is poor; it looks and feels very much like a company being profitably run down (note: I'm still into these guys for around 15k at today's prices, lucky me). The creative direction lately has been atrocious, with a weak new product called 'Age of Sigmar' replacing a known and popular brand ('Warhammer Fantasy'); anecdotal reports from overseas stores in France, Sweden and Canada at least have been that the new product is not selling and competitors are very aggressive in the high-value US market. A report from their recent AGM also made troubling reading (http://www.iii.co.uk/news-opinion/richard-beddard/games-workshop-agm%3A-relentless-profit-machine) - the title is sadly not borne out by the content. One glimmer of light is a much better attitude to licensing for computer; they have gone from having virtually nothing in the market to a very large number of licensed games, one of which (Total War: Warhammer) was shrewdly made with a games company that has a very large existing customer base with a large and successful franchise. And yet I've never seen their reported licensing income as all that exciting; are they cutting bad deals or are IP licenses just really cheap? Also troubling is that the business line they retired is the same one as is used in their high profile licensed game; unless they have a plan for this, they just cut themselves off from merchandising, which doesn't seem ideal." So even stockholders have started noticing"
(1) The core game, roughly equivalent to 4th/5th edition but simplified and cleaned up.
(2) The skirmish game, roughly equivalent to 2nd edition/Kill Team
(3) The mass battle edition, roughly equivalent to Apocalypse.
(4) Various optional rulebooks roughly equivalent to Cities of Death, Planet Strike, Flyers, etc. that can be used to expand one or other of the three core rule books. This would include Formations and the like.
2. Reorganise the codexes to contain only army lists and rules, parallel to the three core game rulebooks.
3. Split all rulebooks and codexes into three parts: rules, fluff and pics. Make them available separately.
4. Balance everything using a combination of mathematical modelling and in depth play testing by the community to criticise rules, army lists and points values.
5. Reduce the prices of the rulebooks and codexes to what they were in 2011.
All the above is directed at sorting out the core problems with the rules. In addition to this, GW should be more open with players, and restart outreach programmes like the AoS Schools League.
3. Split all rulebooks and codexes into three parts: rules, fluff and pics. Make them available separately..
I could see this very easily devolving into having three different books that each cost as much as the original. And while you may have a point about the model photographs (I'm assuming you're not suggesting to remove every bit of artwork from codices), it seems odd not provide a description of the army with that army's rules.
Yes, easily. That is what happened with the 5th, 6th and 7th edition rulebooks.
GW went from one large rulebook priced £30 to a boxed set of three books priced £50 which you could not buy individually. At one point there was also a limited edition hardback rules only book costing £25. At the same time you could buy the starter set, containing the same rules in softback, plus a large amount of models, for £60.
What GW should do but haven't done, is to allow people to buy the three books of the boxed set separately for say £15 each, so I could buy the rules and ignore the fluff and pics books.
In terms of codexes, I have had enough codexes to realise that GW tend to cut and paste a lot of the fluff and pic content from one edition to the next. I have no interest in paying over the odds for a load of recycled material I already own. I think they should issue the codex as a two part set, the army list book and the army background books. These should be priced at £10 each, and if people wanted to buy both of them, they could.
(1) The core game, roughly equivalent to 4th/5th edition but simplified and cleaned up.
(2) The skirmish game, roughly equivalent to 2nd edition/Kill Team
(3) The mass battle edition, roughly equivalent to Apocalypse.
(4) Various optional rulebooks roughly equivalent to Cities of Death, Planet Strike, Flyers, etc. that can be used to expand one or other of the three core rule books. This would include Formations and the like.
2. Reorganise the codexes to contain only army lists and rules, parallel to the three core game rulebooks.
3. Split all rulebooks and codexes into three parts: rules, fluff and pics. Make them available separately.
4. Balance everything using a combination of mathematical modelling and in depth play testing by the community to criticise rules, army lists and points values.
5. Reduce the prices of the rulebooks and codexes to what they were in 2011.
All the above is directed at sorting out the core problems with the rules. In addition to this, GW should be more open with players, and restart outreach programmes like the AoS Schools League.
Scratch all of this. It's too much of a bother for them.
There's just one thing needed to save both 40k AND possibly getting a decent retcon for Fantasy - You sell the IP to a company who knows what to do with it.
Games Workshop's current management is never ever going to change in time to prevent what has now gone past the Event Horizon (aka, the scrapping of its original brand for a new, arguably weaker one). No way in HELL. They just don't have the long term planning capabilities.
I think GW may be in more trouble than it seems. I mean, how can we know if their losses are caused by their actions or changes in playerbase they have no influence on?
I mean, don't think I'm defending GW; I agree on everything that is commonly thought as "bad" about GW, but I think times have changed and there are simply less people interested in modelling and miniature wargaming. With PC games on the rise, "E-Sports" being promoted and all that stuff, kids are simply not interested in oldschool hobbies. The modelling workroom I attended as a kid is closed since years; there were less and less kids interested every year and finally there was not money to keep it going. When I was a kid, almost everyone was into modelling. I was and am a huge aviation enthusiast and always had a lof of scale models. Today the only people I know that are interested in modelling hobbies are 30+.
Let's not lie to ourselves: kids and youngsters are who start with miniature wargaming. Some will get bored with it, forget about it or find another hobby. A handful will find a lot of fun in it and become a lifelong enthusiast. The thing is, nowadays less people decide to try it. My 13yrs old godson visited me recently with his family. He just gave the models an uninterested look and asked if I have any games on my computer.
Now, we all will say the huge prices is what keeps kids away, that GW lacks cheap sets for new players and so on. I gakking agree, but it's not the only factor. And think about it; my godson has a new IPhone, a tablet, a PC, a Playstation and a bunch of games for those. Don't tell me that stuff was cheap and that his parents couldn't afford to buy him some minis from time to time. I had none of these as a kid lol.
I don't want to sound like an old grumpy grandpa, but times did change and I think GW can't do much about losing the playerbase, unless modelling and miniature wargaming becomes trendy again on it's own. Prices are possible to overcome for anyone nowadays with the second-hand market on Ebay, people are simply too lazy and seek easy hobbies. PC games are perfect for them; they get immediate feedback on their progress in the game, don't have to go anywhere, it requires no effort. No assembling, painting, reading rules, mini deployment and so on.
As for the new miniature companies - let's not omit the fact these were crowdfunded by enthusiasts who were in the hobby for some time. The "default"
client was already willing to play the game, knew how to get to it and was ready to buy minis. They have their small, but dedicated playerbase. GW is a much, much bigger company that simply can't remain in it's current state without new casual players every year.
I currently have noone to play WH40k with, that's why I became more of a collectioner/modeller over the years. I miss joking with people and having all sort of talks during the games. I think I have a 90%+ lossrate and it never bothered me
Here on my side, most of the players I used to play with simply stopped being able to afford the game. It was that simple. The annual price increases, combined with the speeding up of releases just made it unsustainable. How GW actually thinks their market will thrive with these prices is simply insane.
I am at the moment slowly starting my 15 year old nephew into 40k (he really likes Tau). Slowly but steadily.
Already I saw the staggering costs that would made it impossible for him to start on his own, without me to partially fund his initiation.
Small rulebook? 40€ from Ebay - I remember I got my AoBR rulebook for 10. I pitched in about 60% of those 40€.
Codex Tau? We're waiting for the new one, and that'll be 40€ (again I will be pitching in with the shipping as I have delayed my DA codex purchase for us to have them both at the same time)
I won him a box of Pathfinders in a painting competition and bought him a Piranha as a thanks for all his help when I was moving my house.
And (of course) he really wants Broadsides and Crisis... and the Riptide...
I guess I may be a bit biased in my opinion, as I am not an active player - therefore I do not need the newest units, in competitive numbers, and can wait for really good prices here and there, don't need the newest rulebook. I just bought 22 FWs for the equivalent of 12€ on an auction.
Thanks for introducing your nephew to a great hobby! I started with Warhammer Fantasy, Lizardmen. I was into dinosaurs and lizards as kid. I had noone funding me yet I managed to collect quite a lot of minis by myself. My codex was not original though (shhhh). So I think it's doable!
I started with High elves (one of the many reasons why I have such vitriol for GW at the moment) back in early 6th. Things were much, much cheaper, and they were still fun. I then started 40k a year later, and things were still the same. The hobby was flourishing, we had lots of new players coming for both games. Sure there were some outdated armybooks (DE was already outdated by then :p).
Now? WMH is taking over, and I barely see a GW game tournament over 6 players - the only attempt at an AoS event in Lisbon (that I have knowledge of) had ONE participant. There's gonna be a huge event this month but this event is run mostly on brand loyalty and on nostalgia (the reunion of ye old gamers, so to say)
When the new Interrogator Chaplain came out I was all giddy to grab it, and drove all they way to Lisbon just to get it... and then the 25€ cost for a single. generic. HQ sucker punched me. No. Just no. It was the first time an impulse purchase was completely robbed out of me.
And then I began understanding how the AUS and NZ crowd feels, and why some people are starting to turn to them chinamen.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: I started with High elves (one of the many reasons why I have such vitriol for GW at the moment) back in early 6th. Things were much, much cheaper, and they were still fun. I then started 40k a year later, and things were still the same. The hobby was flourishing, we had lots of new players coming for both games. Sure there were some outdated armybooks (DE was already outdated by then :p).
Yeah, that's another thing - the minis were a little bit more affordable.
Now? WMH is taking over, and I barely see a GW game tournament over 6 players - the only attempt at an AoS event in Lisbon (that I have knowledge of) had ONE participant.
WOW that is just sad. I stopped following Warhammer Fantasy around 2005 and I was wondering how many people still play it.
When the new Interrogator Chaplain came out I was all giddy to grab it, and drove all they way to Lisbon just to get it... and then the 25€ cost for a single. generic. HQ sucker punched me. No. Just no. It was the first time an impulse purchase was completely robbed out of me.
Sigh, I know that feeling. Sniper Drone Team is my favourite-looking model in the Tau army and because they are so unpopular as a unit you can't get those second-hand easily, and if somehow they appear on the market they are always painted or damaged. A new set of 4 minis costs more than a new FW team...
Please understand I am not saying this for sympathy - I am just doing a fast report on how I see things here in Lisbon. It's just my view of things, of course, and there may be another store in another area of Lisbon running some kick ass 40k/FB/AoS tournaments, but the "big" Portuguese forum doesn't have much info on any tournament apart from the ones I mentioned.
However, the prices are here to stay and you can't run around them without going to China. And no amount of brand loyalty can take away food from my kid's mouth or toys from his hands.
You wanna be afraid? Age of Sigmar IS coming for 40k. I played it with a group of others and a GW rep a year and a half before AoS hit. Didn't know what I was playing at the time, but it was awful. I hate 7th (as a lover of 4th and 5th). This is much, much worse. Prepare for the end times. They're coming, and they will make 40k fanboys weep.
No it won't. Because nothing will do that, short of GW coming round to their houses and setting every miniatures they own on fire. Even then, half of them would probably still praise GW for giving them the opportunity to reinvent their collections with more of GW's new models.
No it won't. Because nothing will do that, short of GW coming round to their houses and setting every miniatures they own on fire. Even then, half of them would probably still praise GW for giving them the opportunity to reinvent their collections with more of GW's new models.
Considering the fanaticism I've seen with the AoS advent... I am inclined to believe in this
Suit yourselves, guys. Having played it, I'm even more glad that I got rid of my 40k stuff. And my friend is unloading his eldar fast. It'll be hitting eBay shortly. He had watched me play it, so he's not just taking my word on it.
timetowaste85 wrote: Suit yourselves, guys. Having played it, I'm even more glad that I got rid of my 40k stuff. And my friend is unloading his eldar fast. It'll be hitting eBay shortly. He had watched me play it, so he's not just taking my word on it.
Yup. Got a 200 model Enforcer army for Warpath lined up, about $500 worth of X-Wing that I paid full retail for, Deadzone, Dreadball, 8th edition fantasy, KoW, WM/H...yeah, I'm not short on other options. If I could have found anyone still playing 5th edition 40k, I might have kept my stuff. But I didn't.
You wanna be afraid? Age of Sigmar IS coming for 40k. I played it with a group of others and a GW rep a year and a half before AoS hit. Didn't know what I was playing at the time, but it was awful. I hate 7th (as a lover of 4th and 5th). This is much, much worse. Prepare for the end times. They're coming, and they will make 40k fanboys weep.
It was done with all big models: Bloodthirster, Khornemower, Knight, Hive Tyrant, couple other things. Each model had the equivalent to a war scroll. Since all big stuff, they lowered things: each model had one attack (clearly would go up to make better than infantry), 3-5 wounds, not armor for things like Knights/Khornemower, attacks hit on a 3+ (Bloodthirster), 4+ (knight), some things had shooting attacks and they had what they were wounded on written on the stat card/warscroll. Yelling out/roaring gave re-rolls to attacks and such like that. It was shown at the same time 7th edition was going out. I thought nothing of it for a while, just left it as a joke/crap game until discussing AoS a few days ago, and it hit me I had played it a year ago. Only with 40k BIG units.
timetowaste85 wrote: You wanna be afraid? Age of Sigmar IS coming for 40k. I played it with a group of others and a GW rep a year and a half before AoS hit. Didn't know what I was playing at the time, but it was awful. I hate 7th (as a lover of 4th and 5th). This is much, much worse. Prepare for the end times. They're coming, and they will make 40k fanboys weep.
You may all now engage in wild hysterics, unfounded panic, regretful analysis of your past financial habits, and rage-filled tangents unrelated to 40k. Bonus points will be awarded for blind support for WMH and/or references to GW stock and quarterly profits.
For those of you already engaged in such, carry on.
Lastly, please choose a well-ventilated area for those of you intending to set your minatures on fire. We wouldn't want to see you doing anything irrational
I have absolutely NO idea when it's landing. But it's been in development since before 7th edition hit. Sadly, what I've listed is quite literally all I have at this time.
timetowaste85 wrote: You wanna be afraid? Age of Sigmar IS coming for 40k. I played it with a group of others and a GW rep a year and a half before AoS hit. Didn't know what I was playing at the time, but it was awful. I hate 7th (as a lover of 4th and 5th). This is much, much worse. Prepare for the end times. They're coming, and they will make 40k fanboys weep.
You may all now engage in wild hysterics, unfounded panic, regretful analysis of your past financial habits, and rage-filled tangents unrelated to 40k. Bonus points will be awarded for blind support for WMH and/or references to GW stock and quarterly profits.
For those of you already engaged in such, carry on.
Lastly, please choose a well-ventilated area for those of you intending to set your minatures on fire. We wouldn't want to see you doing anything irrational
Dang it, I laughed so loudly on your account I actually got a warning from my boss.
timetowaste85 wrote: You wanna be afraid? Age of Sigmar IS coming for 40k. I played it with a group of others and a GW rep a year and a half before AoS hit. Didn't know what I was playing at the time, but it was awful. I hate 7th (as a lover of 4th and 5th). This is much, much worse. Prepare for the end times. They're coming, and they will make 40k fanboys weep.
I don't see it being an End Times at all. The 40k lore is what makes 40k so great and interesting, they HAVE to know that removing all of that lore will kill the franchise. What I can see is them rebooting the rules though - which could quite honestly be a GOOD thing, since the "Starter game" is already there - AoS - so they could give 41k or whatever they call it a more advanced ruleset than what AoS has. Maybe even for free.
timetowaste85 wrote: You wanna be afraid? Age of Sigmar IS coming for 40k. I played it with a group of others and a GW rep a year and a half before AoS hit. Didn't know what I was playing at the time, but it was awful. I hate 7th (as a lover of 4th and 5th). This is much, much worse. Prepare for the end times. They're coming, and they will make 40k fanboys weep.
I don't see it being an End Times at all. The 40k lore is what makes 40k so great and interesting, they HAVE to know that removing all of that lore will kill the franchise.
I wonder if GW had another property with decades of deep, well-written lore behind it? Lore that, perhaps, made the game itself interesting? Surely they wouldn't have done anything to brutally destroy such lore...
timetowaste85 wrote: You wanna be afraid? Age of Sigmar IS coming for 40k. I played it with a group of others and a GW rep a year and a half before AoS hit. Didn't know what I was playing at the time, but it was awful. I hate 7th (as a lover of 4th and 5th). This is much, much worse. Prepare for the end times. They're coming, and they will make 40k fanboys weep.
I don't see it being an End Times at all. The 40k lore is what makes 40k so great and interesting, they HAVE to know that removing all of that lore will kill the franchise.
I wonder if GW had another property with decades of deep, well-written lore behind it? Lore that, perhaps, made the game itself interesting? Surely they wouldn't have done anything to brutally destroy such lore...
Yes, but can you really compare Fantasy with 40k? At least I was under the impression that the 40k universe, lore, merch, spinoff games, video games and so on are on an entirely different level.
*edit* I should add that I am very biased on this since I never found Fantasy interesting, so maybe it's just that bias playing tricks on me and I'm completely off.
timetowaste85 wrote: You wanna be afraid? Age of Sigmar IS coming for 40k. I played it with a group of others and a GW rep a year and a half before AoS hit. Didn't know what I was playing at the time, but it was awful. I hate 7th (as a lover of 4th and 5th). This is much, much worse. Prepare for the end times. They're coming, and they will make 40k fanboys weep.
I don't see it being an End Times at all. The 40k lore is what makes 40k so great and interesting, they HAVE to know that removing all of that lore will kill the franchise.
I wonder if GW had another property with decades of deep, well-written lore behind it? Lore that, perhaps, made the game itself interesting? Surely they wouldn't have done anything to brutally destroy such lore...
Yes, but can you really compare Fantasy with 40k? At least I was under the impression that the 40k universe, lore, merch, spinoff games, video games and so on are on an entirely different level.
If they've done it to the initial brand, the very brand that established their position as the company to go to for Fantasy wargames, what stops them from doing it to 40k?
nekooni wrote: Yes, but can you really compare Fantasy with 40k? At least I was under the impression that the 40k universe, lore, merch, spinoff games, video games and so on are on an entirely different level.
If they've done it to the initial brand, the very brand that established their position as the company to go to for Fantasy wargames, what stops them from doing it to 40k?
Financial viability? From what I understood Fantasy was dying, and GW in general had problems getting new people into the hobby (both 40k and Fantasy are not very accessible to someone new to wargaming) - so killing off a not-very-profitable line and turning it into an easily accessible "entry level game" might turn out pretty good for them.
Having two entry-level games and nothing to progress to (an advanced, more complex game like 40k) would be a great service to the hobby - since people would run off to other manufacturers once they grow out of AoS - but wouldn't be very smart of GW. Not that they're famous for being that, granted.
GW has tried to increase profit with more units- introducing hull points to incentivise weight of fire rather than quality of fire, increased squadrons, as well as increasing the number of wounds the average MC has. This tied in with the more inclusive use of flyers, super-heavies and a generally faster meta game (rapid fire having full range while moving, 2D6 assaults and hitting moving vehicles easier) all works to make the game feel less tactical and more list-dependant than in 4th-5th edition. It also feels like GW has tried to turn the game into something more PC-like with the 'true' LOS and other recent gameplay elements; some of which work (pre-measuring distances, the Run move) while others just seem to stretch the game into something it was never meant to be.
But of course GW making a profit isn't a bad thing in itself, as it keeps the hobby in the mainstream and thus bringing in new players; I just wonder if Chess would have survived the test of time if it was bringing out new and ever more powerful codex books every 3 years. (no reference to Regicide intended).
SDFarsight wrote: GW has tried to increase profit with more units- introducing hull points to incentivice weight of fire rather than quality of fire, increased squadrons, as well as increasing the number of wounds the average MC has. This tied in with the more inclusive use of flyers, super-heavies and a generaly faster meta game (rapid fire having full range while moving, 2D6 assaults and hitting moving vehicles easier) all works to make the game feel less tactical and more list-dependant than in 4th-5th edition. As well as driving production sales it also feels like GW has tried to turn the game into something more PC-like with the 'true' LOS and other recent gameplay elements; some of which work (pre-measuring distances, the Run move) while others just seem to stretch the game into something it was never meant to be.
But of course GW making a profit isn't a bad thing in itself, as it keeps the hobby in the mainstream and thus bringing in new players; I just wonder if Chess would have survived the test of time if it was bringing out new and ever more powerful codex books every 3 years. (no reference to Regicide intended).
I'm pretty sure that there wasn't like one smart guy in like 300BC who came up with Chess and since then everyone played Chess the same way. Abilities of the models probably changed from time to time until we finally came to modern chess. Of course you wouldn't notice "power creep" at all if all you ever do is play with the same Army List and your opponent playing the very same list as well.
timetowaste85 wrote: You wanna be afraid? Age of Sigmar IS coming for 40k. I played it with a group of others and a GW rep a year and a half before AoS hit. Didn't know what I was playing at the time, but it was awful. I hate 7th (as a lover of 4th and 5th). This is much, much worse. Prepare for the end times. They're coming, and they will make 40k fanboys weep.
I don't see it being an End Times at all. The 40k lore is what makes 40k so great and interesting, they HAVE to know that removing all of that lore will kill the franchise.
I wonder if GW had another property with decades of deep, well-written lore behind it? Lore that, perhaps, made the game itself interesting? Surely they wouldn't have done anything to brutally destroy such lore...
Yes, but can you really compare Fantasy with 40k? At least I was under the impression that the 40k universe, lore, merch, spinoff games, video games and so on are on an entirely different level.
If they've done it to the initial brand, the very brand that established their position as the company to go to for Fantasy wargames, what stops them from doing it to 40k?
Fantasy may have been the first, but 40k very quickly eclipsed it in popularity and revenue. At the time that it was scrapped, fantasy wasn't pulling in nearly as much as 40k. Because Fantasy isn't a master of GW's profits the way 40k is, they can afford to experiment with it a little (or a lot).
Initial brand fantasy may be, but the principal brand it is not. Hell, the introduction of Sigmarines was an attempt to make fantasy more like 40k
timetowaste85 wrote: You wanna be afraid? Age of Sigmar IS coming for 40k. I played it with a group of others and a GW rep a year and a half before AoS hit. Didn't know what I was playing at the time, but it was awful. I hate 7th (as a lover of 4th and 5th). This is much, much worse. Prepare for the end times. They're coming, and they will make 40k fanboys weep.
I don't see it being an End Times at all. The 40k lore is what makes 40k so great and interesting, they HAVE to know that removing all of that lore will kill the franchise.
I wonder if GW had another property with decades of deep, well-written lore behind it? Lore that, perhaps, made the game itself interesting? Surely they wouldn't have done anything to brutally destroy such lore...
Yes, but can you really compare Fantasy with 40k? At least I was under the impression that the 40k universe, lore, merch, spinoff games, video games and so on are on an entirely different level.
If they've done it to the initial brand, the very brand that established their position as the company to go to for Fantasy wargames, what stops them from doing it to 40k?
Fantasy may have been the first, but 40k very quickly eclipsed it in popularity and revenue. At the time that it was scrapped, fantasy wasn't pulling in nearly as much as 40k. Because Fantasy isn't a master of GW's profits the way 40k is, they can afford to experiment with it a little (or a lot).
Initial brand fantasy may be, but the principal brand it is not. Hell, the introduction of Sigmarines was an attempt to make fantasy more like 40k
And you'll note how well that's been received.
40k might have eclipsed Fantasy in revenue, but I'm willing to bet AoS doesn't make nearly as much as either one of them, and the background was easily on par with that of 40k - at least. Anyone looking at it should have been able to see that changing it wasn't the answer to any of the game's problems...
But we're dealing with the company that has no problem coming up with ridiculous new faction names so they can slap a trademark on it - or, in the case of 'aelfs', because they THINK they can slap a trademark on it - and that sort of behavior is certainly already entrenched in 40k. Astra Militarum, anyone?
Spinner wrote: And you'll note how well that's been received.
40k might have eclipsed Fantasy in revenue, but I'm willing to bet AoS doesn't make nearly as much as either one of them, and the background was easily on par with that of 40k - at least. Anyone looking at it should have been able to see that changing it wasn't the answer to any of the game's problems...
But we're dealing with the company that has no problem coming up with ridiculous new faction names so they can slap a trademark on it - or, in the case of 'aelfs', because they THINK they can slap a trademark on it - and that sort of behavior is certainly already entrenched in 40k. Astra Militarum, anyone?
My local meta simply doesn't have any Fantasy OR AoS players, so I really have no indicator there - and none of the others are remotely interested in AoS outside of it being part of a joke. YMMV when it comes to that, though.
I can see the lure of the new models - heck, even I was thinking about picking up a few just for painting them - and the indirect effect of getting more people interested in the hobby and switching over to 40k.
Yes, AoS certainly antagonized large parts of the existing WHF player base. But it wasn't that huge anyhow. Let's see how AoS evolves from here and wait until GW comes out with the financial results before we deem it an utter failure. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if AoS managed to eclipse WHF - at the bare minimum I think it has the potential to do so within a few years simply by being much more accessible. "Get new players" is the mantra at GW now, as opposed to "keep the playerbase happy". They'll have to do something about that, though - which is why I hope for a reboot of the 40k rules "non-AoS-style".
Going back to the financial results, these give evidence of losing customers over maybe 10 years and actual revenue declines over the past three years.
If all the decline can be ascribed to WHFB, then 40K has nothing to fear. However for various reasons I think 40K has become part of the problems too.
SDFarsight wrote: GW has tried to increase profit with more units- introducing hull points to incentivice weight of fire rather than quality of fire, increased squadrons, as well as increasing the number of wounds the average MC has. This tied in with the more inclusive use of flyers, super-heavies and a generaly faster meta game (rapid fire having full range while moving, 2D6 assaults and hitting moving vehicles easier) all works to make the game feel less tactical and more list-dependant than in 4th-5th edition. As well as driving production sales it also feels like GW has tried to turn the game into something more PC-like with the 'true' LOS and other recent gameplay elements; some of which work (pre-measuring distances, the Run move) while others just seem to stretch the game into something it was never meant to be.
But of course GW making a profit isn't a bad thing in itself, as it keeps the hobby in the mainstream and thus bringing in new players; I just wonder if Chess would have survived the test of time if it was bringing out new and ever more powerful codex books every 3 years. (no reference to Regicide intended).
I'm pretty sure that there wasn't like one smart guy in like 300BC who came up with Chess and since then everyone played Chess the same way. Abilities of the models probably changed from time to time until we finally came to modern chess. Of course you wouldn't notice "power creep" at all if all you ever do is play with the same Army List and your opponent playing the very same list as well.
Well of course there was development to it, I'm not saying that things have to be perfect in their 1st edition, and indeed I like there being more codexes (or rather, more races)- the more the better! What I meant is that the balance and the gameplay in general seems to be 2nd in priority to bringing out new attractive armies.
Spinner wrote: And you'll note how well that's been received.
40k might have eclipsed Fantasy in revenue, but I'm willing to bet AoS doesn't make nearly as much as either one of them, and the background was easily on par with that of 40k - at least. Anyone looking at it should have been able to see that changing it wasn't the answer to any of the game's problems...
But we're dealing with the company that has no problem coming up with ridiculous new faction names so they can slap a trademark on it - or, in the case of 'aelfs', because they THINK they can slap a trademark on it - and that sort of behavior is certainly already entrenched in 40k. Astra Militarum, anyone?
My local meta simply doesn't have any Fantasy OR AoS players, so I really have no indicator there - and none of the others are remotely interested in AoS outside of it being part of a joke. YMMV when it comes to that, though.
I can see the lure of the new models - heck, even I was thinking about picking up a few just for painting them - and the indirect effect of getting more people interested in the hobby and switching over to 40k.
Yes, AoS certainly antagonized large parts of the existing WHF player base. But it wasn't that huge anyhow. Let's see how AoS evolves from here and wait until GW comes out with the financial results before we deem it an utter failure. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if AoS managed to eclipse WHF - at the bare minimum I think it has the potential to do so within a few years simply by being much more accessible. "Get new players" is the mantra at GW now, as opposed to "keep the playerbase happy". They'll have to do something about that, though - which is why I hope for a reboot of the 40k rules "non-AoS-style".
FWIW, I live in an area where WFB is still popular. If people playing in the local store is any indication, it is even more popular than 40k.
In my locale, gamers are convinced that AoS is just a fun side-game. They still play games with the last WFB rules as though AoS was never released.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As far as Atra Militarum goes:
timetowaste85 wrote: You wanna be afraid? Age of Sigmar IS coming for 40k. I played it with a group of others and a GW rep a year and a half before AoS hit. Didn't know what I was playing at the time, but it was awful. I hate 7th (as a lover of 4th and 5th). This is much, much worse. Prepare for the end times. They're coming, and they will make 40k fanboys weep.
I don't see it being an End Times at all. The 40k lore is what makes 40k so great and interesting, they HAVE to know that removing all of that lore will kill the franchise.
I wonder if GW had another property with decades of deep, well-written lore behind it? Lore that, perhaps, made the game itself interesting? Surely they wouldn't have done anything to brutally destroy such lore...
Yes, but can you really compare Fantasy with 40k? At least I was under the impression that the 40k universe, lore, merch, spinoff games, video games and so on are on an entirely different level.
If they've done it to the initial brand, the very brand that established their position as the company to go to for Fantasy wargames, what stops them from doing it to 40k?
Fantasy may have been the first, but 40k very quickly eclipsed it in popularity and revenue. At the time that it was scrapped, fantasy wasn't pulling in nearly as much as 40k. Because Fantasy isn't a master of GW's profits the way 40k is, they can afford to experiment with it a little (or a lot).
Initial brand fantasy may be, but the principal brand it is not. Hell, the introduction of Sigmarines was an attempt to make fantasy more like 40k
And look at how well THAT went. Because clearly a shattered based is a better prospect than it was.
But I digress. You are correct in saying it wasn't the biggest seller for GW, but it was the base of it all. The 40k system came from Fantasy, as well as a lot of its original playerbase. The foundation.
I guess that what I mean is that for GW nothing is sacred if it means they can profit a little, or at least think they can.
Spinner wrote: And you'll note how well that's been received.
40k might have eclipsed Fantasy in revenue, but I'm willing to bet AoS doesn't make nearly as much as either one of them, and the background was easily on par with that of 40k - at least. Anyone looking at it should have been able to see that changing it wasn't the answer to any of the game's problems...
But we're dealing with the company that has no problem coming up with ridiculous new faction names so they can slap a trademark on it - or, in the case of 'aelfs', because they THINK they can slap a trademark on it - and that sort of behavior is certainly already entrenched in 40k. Astra Militarum, anyone?
My local meta simply doesn't have any Fantasy OR AoS players, so I really have no indicator there - and none of the others are remotely interested in AoS outside of it being part of a joke. YMMV when it comes to that, though.
I can see the lure of the new models - heck, even I was thinking about picking up a few just for painting them - and the indirect effect of getting more people interested in the hobby and switching over to 40k.
Yes, AoS certainly antagonized large parts of the existing WHF player base. But it wasn't that huge anyhow. Let's see how AoS evolves from here and wait until GW comes out with the financial results before we deem it an utter failure. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if AoS managed to eclipse WHF - at the bare minimum I think it has the potential to do so within a few years simply by being much more accessible. "Get new players" is the mantra at GW now, as opposed to "keep the playerbase happy". They'll have to do something about that, though - which is why I hope for a reboot of the 40k rules "non-AoS-style".
FWIW, I live in an area where WFB is still popular. If people playing in the local store is any indication, it is even more popular than 40k.
In my locale, gamers are convinced that AoS is just a fun side-game. They still play games with the last WFB rules as though AoS was never released.
I haven't looked into AOS enough to judge it fully, but from what I've seen and heard it's a desperate attempt to put marines into WFB when the lack of marines really isn't addressing what I, as a 40K-only player, find off-putting about WHFB. Personally I haven't played WHFB because despite loving the fluff (I bought the Skaven codex just for reading, and I really liked the WHFB mod for Medieval 2 Total War), there just doesn't seem to be anything really special that 40K doesn't have. Chaos is more or less the same but with power armour- even the 40K Chaos Deamons were pictured with their square WHFB bases when they first came out. There's giants, but 40K has titans. There's nothing really wrong with Fantasy, I just don't see anything in it which justifies me moving over to a different game system. There is the awesome fluff of a pseudo-Holy Roman Empire fighting against Orcs etc, but there's novels for that. If I had unlimited funds then I could see myself putting together a Skaven or Dwarf army, but even then I'd wonder if it's worth it when it can be hard to find other people to have matches with. I guess 40K's success is partially self-perpetuating; people play it because there's no point in spending £500 on an army that in their local club only a Dwarf player with a surprisingly relevant beard is playing. I generalise of course, but that's been my experience.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As far as Atra Militarum goes:
As mentioned in another topic, I really want this to get better, not concerned how. GW just starts making stuff better? Great! GW gets some sense knocked into them by financial issues? Great! GW dies and someone better ends up with the IPs? Great!
Just as long as 40k remains and doesn't get the AOS treatment though, I should be fine. I've only been around in 7th and even I am scared of that happening!
@SDFarsight: I've never played WFB, so I'm not familiar with the rules.
To me, the barrier to entry has always been the models. While I think some of the WFB models are awesome, the majority of them are too cartoon-y for my taste.
Plus, when I started TT gaming, LoTR was still somewhat popular, and that really was an awesome game, so there was never really a reason for me to look into WFB too much. Taking on LoTR always confused me, as it seemed like a direct competitor to WFB...why would they want to divide their own market?
CrashGordon94 wrote: As mentioned in another topic, I really want this to get better, not concerned how. GW just starts making stuff better? Great! GW gets some sense knocked into them by financial issues? Great! GW dies and someone better ends up with the IPs? Great!
Just as long as 40k remains and doesn't get the AOS treatment though, I should be fine. I've only been around in 7th and even I am scared of that happening!
Sorry to disappoint, but it IS coming. I've played it. Or at least a version of it. A full year and change before AoS hit. Heck, played it the weekend 7th was actually hitting retail shelves, if memory serves.
timetowaste85 wrote: You wanna be afraid? Age of Sigmar IS coming for 40k. I played it with a group of others and a GW rep a year and a half before AoS hit. Didn't know what I was playing at the time, but it was awful. I hate 7th (as a lover of 4th and 5th). This is much, much worse. Prepare for the end times. They're coming, and they will make 40k fanboys weep.
I don't see it being an End Times at all. The 40k lore is what makes 40k so great and interesting, they HAVE to know that removing all of that lore will kill the franchise.
I wonder if GW had another property with decades of deep, well-written lore behind it? Lore that, perhaps, made the game itself interesting? Surely they wouldn't have done anything to brutally destroy such lore...
Yes, but can you really compare Fantasy with 40k? At least I was under the impression that the 40k universe, lore, merch, spinoff games, video games and so on are on an entirely different level.
If they've done it to the initial brand, the very brand that established their position as the company to go to for Fantasy wargames, what stops them from doing it to 40k?
Fantasy may have been the first, but 40k very quickly eclipsed it in popularity and revenue. At the time that it was scrapped, fantasy wasn't pulling in nearly as much as 40k. Because Fantasy isn't a master of GW's profits the way 40k is, they can afford to experiment with it a little (or a lot).
Initial brand fantasy may be, but the principal brand it is not. Hell, the introduction of Sigmarines was an attempt to make fantasy more like 40k
And look at how well THAT went. Because clearly a shattered based is a better prospect than it was.
But I digress. You are correct in saying it wasn't the biggest seller for GW, but it was the base of it all. The 40k system came from Fantasy, as well as a lot of its original playerbase. The foundation.
I guess that what I mean is that for GW nothing is sacred if it means they can profit a little, or at least think they can.
I'm not suggesting that AoS was an intelligent decision, or that GW execs hold anything sacred. My point was that, on some level, they are aware that changing a product to such a major degree could have a negative impact on profits. Because Fantasy isn't as large a source of profit, GW decided that attempting a redesign was worth the risk, because they lost profit wouldn't break the company. In contrast, 40k is the franchise that is keeping the firm alive. Messing with it in any significant way is a very large risk where profits are concerned. I would imagine that it is for a similar reason that the timeline has remained frozen in place. Advancing it entails fixing something that already "works" to some degree. Age of the Emprah won't happen until true desperation sets in.
CrashGordon94 wrote: As mentioned in another topic, I really want this to get better, not concerned how. GW just starts making stuff better? Great! GW gets some sense knocked into them by financial issues? Great! GW dies and someone better ends up with the IPs? Great!
Just as long as 40k remains and doesn't get the AOS treatment though, I should be fine. I've only been around in 7th and even I am scared of that happening!
40K will always remain, it's just a question of if a company carries the torch of gaining new players or if it gets lost in obscurity until you can only find people to play games online.
timetowaste85 wrote: Sorry to disappoint, but it IS coming. I've played it. Or at least a version of it. A full year and change before AoS hit. Heck, played it the weekend 7th was actually hitting retail shelves, if memory serves.
That's what I'm afraid of...
I can only hope they get deterred from this stupid plan (by AOS failing horribly or something) or at least they keep full-fat 40k around. I suppose Age Of The Emperor doesn't have to be a bad thing as long as long as the real deal sticks around.
SDFarsight wrote: 40K will always remain, it's just a quesiton of if a company carries the torch of gaining new players or if it dies a slow death until you can only find people to play games online.
I suppose I should clarify that I mean it remaining officially supporting and not getting squatted like Fantasy Battle.
SDFarsight wrote: 40K will always remain, it's just a quesiton of if a company carries the torch of gaining new players or if it dies a slow death until you can only find people to play games online.
I suppose I should clarify that I mean it remaining officially supporting and not getting squatted like Fantasy Battle.
CrashGordon94 wrote: Yeah.
I'm sure I could continue playing 7E with friends even in the worst case scenario, but trying against new people and getting new models...
Then it's a good thing that I'm more into 40K for the fluff and the gaming. If 40K went entirely online I'd be quite happy, albiet occasionaly missing that friendly atmophire of a real tabletop game.
Kahnawake wrote: Is X-Wing any fun? I see alot of people playing that recently.
If they go AoS on WH40k, that would be the end of GW
cheers
Kahnawake
Yes, it is great fun.
A dogfighting game featuring iconic starfighters and pilots from the massively popular Star Wars, with simple rules that lead to complex tactics, and a sprinkling of special rules to add spice to the mix. All topped off with play straight out of the box ready painted models, cards and tokens for an experience that is as accessible as playing a wargame could be.
To put the prices in perspective, you can get an X Wing starter set with three 'planes' for about £20 to £25, and the add-on planes are about £10 to £12 each (more for large models like Millenium Falcon). Six to eight models a side will give quite an involved game, so you and a pal could get a really good set up for £100 to £150 each.
CrashGordon94 wrote: Yeah.
I'm sure I could continue playing 7E with friends even in the worst case scenario, but trying against new people and getting new models...
Then it's a good thing that I'm more into 40K for the fluff and the gaming. If 40K went entirely online I'd be quite happy, albiet occasionaly missing that friendly atmophire of a real tabletop game.
timetowaste85 wrote: You wanna be afraid? Age of Sigmar IS coming for 40k. I played it with a group of others and a GW rep a year and a half before AoS hit. Didn't know what I was playing at the time, but it was awful. I hate 7th (as a lover of 4th and 5th). This is much, much worse. Prepare for the end times. They're coming, and they will make 40k fanboys weep.
I don't see it being an End Times at all. The 40k lore is what makes 40k so great and interesting, they HAVE to know that removing all of that lore will kill the franchise.
I wonder if GW had another property with decades of deep, well-written lore behind it? Lore that, perhaps, made the game itself interesting? Surely they wouldn't have done anything to brutally destroy such lore...
Yes, but can you really compare Fantasy with 40k? At least I was under the impression that the 40k universe, lore, merch, spinoff games, video games and so on are on an entirely different level.
If they've done it to the initial brand, the very brand that established their position as the company to go to for Fantasy wargames, what stops them from doing it to 40k?
Fantasy may have been the first, but 40k very quickly eclipsed it in popularity and revenue. At the time that it was scrapped, fantasy wasn't pulling in nearly as much as 40k. Because Fantasy isn't a master of GW's profits the way 40k is, they can afford to experiment with it a little (or a lot).
Initial brand fantasy may be, but the principal brand it is not. Hell, the introduction of Sigmarines was an attempt to make fantasy more like 40k
And look at how well THAT went. Because clearly a shattered based is a better prospect than it was.
But I digress. You are correct in saying it wasn't the biggest seller for GW, but it was the base of it all. The 40k system came from Fantasy, as well as a lot of its original playerbase. The foundation.
I guess that what I mean is that for GW nothing is sacred if it means they can profit a little, or at least think they can.
I'm not suggesting that AoS was an intelligent decision, or that GW execs hold anything sacred. My point was that, on some level, they are aware that changing a product to such a major degree could have a negative impact on profits. Because Fantasy isn't as large a source of profit, GW decided that attempting a redesign was worth the risk, because they lost profit wouldn't break the company. In contrast, 40k is the franchise that is keeping the firm alive. Messing with it in any significant way is a very large risk where profits are concerned. I would imagine that it is for a similar reason that the timeline has remained frozen in place. Advancing it entails fixing something that already "works" to some degree. Age of the Emprah won't happen until true desperation sets in.
This is absolutely correct. Fantasy sales must have dropped to the point where it was a worthwhile risk to can the whole game and bring in a new product that built on the foundations.
However 40K has in the last three years repeated the mistakes that helped bring WHFB to the bring of the abyss.
The rules have become very complex and widely disliked in many details. The army sizes have been increased to screw more money out of players, and the price of rulebooks and codexes has been doubled.
During the time period of these changes, GW sales revenues have declined about 25%. This argues strongly that 40K is getting into the same difficulties as Fantasy did, that led to Fantasy being canned in favour of AoS. 40K is declining from a much higher level, of course, so it needs to fall farther before the situation becomes critical.
AoS looks like a weird replacement for Fantasy because the free rules and lists mean players do not have to buy new stuff to play the game. Presumably, GW expect that veterans will start to buy the new kits and books, and that there will be a lot of new recruits from scratch. It is too early to tell if this is happening.
If AoS is a financial success, I would expect 40K to go down a similar road.
jasper76 wrote: Seems like GW has been trying over and over again to bring the 40k experience to video games, and hasn't succeeded at all.
Part of the appeal of 40k is precisely that its not a video game. If I wanted a sci-fi video game, I'd go out and buy one. They're a dime a dozen.
They may be. Grimdark science fantasy video games, on the other hand, are comparatively more rare.
The main reason we haven't seen many 40k video games is because GW has until recently been obsessively protective about their IP. And the reason a large portion of the newer ones are gak is because GW has been handing out the license to whoever wants it lately, with no quality control.
If AoS is a financial success, I would expect 40K to go down a similar road.
That's a pretty "if." Regardless of one's personal opinions on the matter (full disclosure: I think it's a stinking pile of garbage that needs to be purged from this world like nothing has been purged before), he cannot deny that the game has been very controversial. My baseless estimate is that it is disliked by a bare minimum of half of the user base, and I doubt it will bring in enough new players to compensate for that. As I have said before, wargaming and other niche hobbies thrive on their base userbase, not bringing in new ones. This is doubly true for high-investment hobbies, of which GW wargames are certainly a member.
jasper76 wrote: Seems like GW has been trying over and over again to bring the 40k experience to video games, and hasn't succeeded at all.
Part of the appeal of 40k is precisely that its not a video game. If I wanted a sci-fi video game, I'd go out and buy one. They're a dime a dozen.
They may be. Grimdark science fantasy video games, on the other hand, are comparatively more rare.
The main reason we haven't seen many 40k video games is because GW has until recently been obsessively protective about their IP. And the reason a large portion of the newer ones are gak is because GW has been handing out the license to whoever wants it lately, with no quality control.
While I'm not arguing against any of your points, it's possible that a reason that the newer GW-IP video games are crap is because the vast, vast majority of modern video games are crap in general.
CrashGordon94 wrote: Yeah.
I'm sure I could continue playing 7E with friends even in the worst case scenario, but trying against new people and getting new models...
Then it's a good thing that I'm more into 40K for the fluff and the gaming. If 40K went entirely online I'd be quite happy, albiet occasionaly missing that friendly atmophire of a real tabletop game.
jasper76 wrote: Seems like GW has been trying over and over again to bring the 40k experience to video games, and hasn't succeeded at all.
Part of the appeal of 40k is precisely that its not a video game. If I wanted a sci-fi video game, I'd go out and buy one. They're a dime a dozen.
They may be. Grimdark science fantasy video games, on the other hand, are comparatively more rare.
The main reason we haven't seen many 40k video games is because GW has until recently been obsessively protective about their IP. And the reason a large portion of the newer ones are gak is because GW has been handing out the license to whoever wants it lately, with no quality control.
While I'm not arguing against any of your points, it's possible that a reason that the newer GW-IP video games are crap is because the vast, vast majority of modern video games are crap in general.
jasper76 wrote: Seems like GW has been trying over and over again to bring the 40k experience to video games, and hasn't succeeded at all.
Part of the appeal of 40k is precisely that its not a video game. If I wanted a sci-fi video game, I'd go out and buy one. They're a dime a dozen.
They may be. Grimdark science fantasy video games, on the other hand, are comparatively more rare.
The main reason we haven't seen many 40k video games is because GW has until recently been obsessively protective about their IP. And the reason a large portion of the newer ones are gak is because GW has been handing out the license to whoever wants it lately, with no quality control.
While I'm not arguing against any of your points, it's possible that a reason that the newer GW-IP video games are crap is because the vast, vast majority of modern video games are crap in general.
I wouldn't disagree. Appealing to the least common denominator and so forth. Though I doubt the failure of 40k vidya is relevant to the appeal of the universe in different media. Space Marine was decent, for instance, though a bit repetitive towards the end.
The main reason we haven't seen many 40k video games
There have been 24 if my research is correct. Thats not a bad number considering 40k itself is around 20 years old.
An average of 1 a year with some notably good ones - Chaos Gate, Final Lib, Space Marine, DoW series and SpaceHulk.
The main reason we haven't seen many 40k video games
There have been 24 if my research is correct. Thats not a bad number considering 40k itself is around 20 years old.
An average of 1 a year with some notably good ones - Chaos Gate, Final Lib, Space Marine, DoW series and SpaceHulk.
I meant to append that with "until recently." We've had an explosion of them over the past few years.
jasper76 wrote: Seems like GW has been trying over and over again to bring the 40k experience to video games, and hasn't succeeded at all.
Part of the appeal of 40k is precisely that its not a video game. If I wanted a sci-fi video game, I'd go out and buy one. They're a dime a dozen.
They may be. Grimdark science fantasy video games, on the other hand, are comparatively more rare.
The main reason we haven't seen many 40k video games is because GW has until recently been obsessively protective about their IP. And the reason a large portion of the newer ones are gak is because GW has been handing out the license to whoever wants it lately, with no quality control.
If AoS is a financial success, I would expect 40K to go down a similar road.
That's a pretty "if." Regardless of one's personal opinions on the matter (full disclosure: I think it's a stinking pile of garbage that needs to be purged from this world like nothing has been purged before), he cannot deny that the game has been very controversial. My baseless estimate is that it is disliked by a bare minimum of half of the user base, and I doubt it will bring in enough new players to compensate for that. As I have said before, wargaming and other niche hobbies thrive on their base userbase, not bringing in new ones. This is doubly true for high-investment hobbies, of which GW wargames are certainly a member.
I have trusted sources who know people in GW. They consider AoS a success and hugely love the warscrolls.
jasper76 wrote: Seems like GW has been trying over and over again to bring the 40k experience to video games, and hasn't succeeded at all.
Part of the appeal of 40k is precisely that its not a video game. If I wanted a sci-fi video game, I'd go out and buy one. They're a dime a dozen.
They may be. Grimdark science fantasy video games, on the other hand, are comparatively more rare.
The main reason we haven't seen many 40k video games is because GW has until recently been obsessively protective about their IP. And the reason a large portion of the newer ones are gak is because GW has been handing out the license to whoever wants it lately, with no quality control.
If AoS is a financial success, I would expect 40K to go down a similar road.
That's a pretty "if." Regardless of one's personal opinions on the matter (full disclosure: I think it's a stinking pile of garbage that needs to be purged from this world like nothing has been purged before), he cannot deny that the game has been very controversial. My baseless estimate is that it is disliked by a bare minimum of half of the user base, and I doubt it will bring in enough new players to compensate for that. As I have said before, wargaming and other niche hobbies thrive on their base userbase, not bringing in new ones. This is doubly true for high-investment hobbies, of which GW wargames are certainly a member.
I have trusted sources who know people in GW. They consider AoS a success and hugely love the warscrolls.
Warscrolls are a fantastic idea. It's no army structure/points that sucks.
The main reason we haven't seen many 40k video games
There have been 24 if my research is correct. Thats not a bad number considering 40k itself is around 20 years old.
An average of 1 a year with some notably good ones - Chaos Gate, Final Lib, Space Marine, DoW series and SpaceHulk.
I meant to append that with "until recently." We've had an explosion of them over the past few years.
Let's just point out that your "few" means "for the past DECADE".
DoW came out 2004, followed by Winter Assault and Dark Crusade in '05 / '06. '08 saw Dark Crusade, '09 saw DoW2 followed by Chaos Rising in '10 and Retribution AS WELL AS Space Marine in 2011. '13 saw Space Hulk.
'14 was when GW apparently removed any quality concerns and crappy games started to flood the franchise. Let's hope they finally bring the quality games back now, hoping for Eternal Crusade, Inquisitor, Deathwing and Armada - and I think I heard something about a DoW3.
And honestly one could argue that even before 2004 40k has been decently represented. The longest "dry streak" was 2000-2002. Probably had something to do with SSI ceasing to exist in 2001, and THQ picking up the franchise in 2003 only. But baring that, the Franchise had a game released AT LEAST every other year since 1992, and there are not many years without any game.
CrashGordon94 wrote: And basically makes the game literally unplayable without mad homebrew skills/house-ruling/long arguments.
Warscrolls don't cause that. GW's loose writing and utter disregard for game balance cause that. As a concept, warscrolls are great. Give all of units stats and abilities on one handy sheet, which is free. Fantastic idea. Just poor implementation.
CrashGordon94 wrote: And basically makes the game literally unplayable without mad homebrew skills/house-ruling/long arguments.
Warscrolls don't cause that. GW's loose writing and utter disregard for game balance cause that. As a concept, warscrolls are great. Give all of units stats and abilities on one handy sheet, which is free. Fantastic idea. Just poor implementation.
I don't personally like it, but then I run half of my army using proxies as I save time and money to buy and build the rest. It isn't a bad idea from a business standpoint, but the paying for rules for individual units would only further encourage better units costing more dollars. Even discounting this, I don't see it as beneficial to internal army balance, as the rules aren't unified.
CrashGordon94 wrote: And basically makes the game literally unplayable without mad homebrew skills/house-ruling/long arguments.
Warscrolls don't cause that. GW's loose writing and utter disregard for game balance cause that. As a concept, warscrolls are great. Give all of units stats and abilities on one handy sheet, which is free. Fantastic idea. Just poor implementation.
My post was a direct response to your second sentence. Sorry, probably should've quoted it.
jasper76 wrote: Seems like GW has been trying over and over again to bring the 40k experience to video games, and hasn't succeeded at all.
Part of the appeal of 40k is precisely that its not a video game. If I wanted a sci-fi video game, I'd go out and buy one. They're a dime a dozen.
They may be. Grimdark science fantasy video games, on the other hand, are comparatively more rare.
The main reason we haven't seen many 40k video games is because GW has until recently been obsessively protective about their IP. And the reason a large portion of the newer ones are gak is because GW has been handing out the license to whoever wants it lately, with no quality control.
If AoS is a financial success, I would expect 40K to go down a similar road.
That's a pretty "if." Regardless of one's personal opinions on the matter (full disclosure: I think it's a stinking pile of garbage that needs to be purged from this world like nothing has been purged before), he cannot deny that the game has been very controversial. My baseless estimate is that it is disliked by a bare minimum of half of the user base, and I doubt it will bring in enough new players to compensate for that. As I have said before, wargaming and other niche hobbies thrive on their base userbase, not bringing in new ones. This is doubly true for high-investment hobbies, of which GW wargames are certainly a member.
I have trusted sources who know people in GW. They consider AoS a success and hugely love the warscrolls.
Well I mean, I know we're all fearmongering in here, but you're 1/4 in the Rumor Accuracy thread. So, you'll forgive me if I don't go off your word that "AoS version of 40k IS COMING". Basing my buying/selling habits off internet rumors is something I try not to do.
They're producing Codexes at a steady rate and FW is producing models and rules at a steady rate. I'm not particularly scared of them releasing a codex and then a month later invalidating it by remaking the entire system. Releasing 8e and breaking rules, sure, but that's par for the course.
Eh, GW will likely struggle on. My LGS group is still thriving (though it definitely is not without it's fair amount of End Times criers) and while it does my love of it will stay.
Is it perfect? Nope, but it's enough for right now and I'll keep playing as long as my friends will. I've tried WMH and looked at plenty of others, but nothing holds my passion the way 40k does. Will it eventually become an abomination that I decry in the same vein of the old fogies who decry 7th? Absolutely.
Until then, I'l keep rolling dice and buying off old fogie's collections off eBay.
P.S. Nothing wrong with being an old fogie. Your hate is totally justified, but 7th is still a blast to me.
jasper76 wrote: Seems like GW has been trying over and over again to bring the 40k experience to video games, and hasn't succeeded at all.
Part of the appeal of 40k is precisely that its not a video game. If I wanted a sci-fi video game, I'd go out and buy one. They're a dime a dozen.
They may be. Grimdark science fantasy video games, on the other hand, are comparatively more rare.
The main reason we haven't seen many 40k video games is because GW has until recently been obsessively protective about their IP. And the reason a large portion of the newer ones are gak is because GW has been handing out the license to whoever wants it lately, with no quality control.
If AoS is a financial success, I would expect 40K to go down a similar road.
That's a pretty "if." Regardless of one's personal opinions on the matter (full disclosure: I think it's a stinking pile of garbage that needs to be purged from this world like nothing has been purged before), he cannot deny that the game has been very controversial. My baseless estimate is that it is disliked by a bare minimum of half of the user base, and I doubt it will bring in enough new players to compensate for that. As I have said before, wargaming and other niche hobbies thrive on their base userbase, not bringing in new ones. This is doubly true for high-investment hobbies, of which GW wargames are certainly a member.
I have trusted sources who know people in GW. They consider AoS a success and hugely love the warscrolls.
Well I mean, I know we're all fearmongering in here, but you're 1/4 in the Rumor Accuracy thread. So, you'll forgive me if I don't go off your word that "AoS version of 40k IS COMING". Basing my buying/selling habits off internet rumors is something I try not to do.
They're producing Codexes at a steady rate and FW is producing models and rules at a steady rate. I'm not particularly scared of them releasing a codex and then a month later invalidating it by remaking the entire system. Releasing 8e and breaking rules, sure, but that's par for the course.
That's fine. You're entitled to not believe me. But this isn't just information I'm getting from other sources. This is coming from me directly playing an early version of it. I have no timetables. No idea when it'll drop. Hell, for all I know, it could be this Horus Heresy set that everyone is going gaga over. I really have no idea on a time frame. But it is in development, and has been for a year and a half minimum.
CrashGordon94 wrote: And basically makes the game literally unplayable without mad homebrew skills/house-ruling/long arguments.
Warscrolls don't cause that. GW's loose writing and utter disregard for game balance cause that. As a concept, warscrolls are great. Give all of units stats and abilities on one handy sheet, which is free. Fantastic idea. Just poor implementation.
My post was a direct response to your second sentence. Sorry, probably should've quoted it.
That's fine. You're entitled to not believe me. But this isn't just information I'm getting from other sources. This is coming from me directly playing an early version of it. I have no timetables. No idea when it'll drop. Hell, for all I know, it could be this Horus Heresy set that everyone is going gaga over. I really have no idea on a time frame. But it is in development, and has been for a year and a half minimum.
But you're drawing a conclusion from a faulty premise. The game you played could have been a test run that will never be implemented or was just to see how well a small game would work and apply the results to fantasy.
When you played this, where there any Fantasy players there or were you merely what was available?
There is also the possibility they come up with a mini game like they did with the flyers or some sort of campaign book. Lots of possibilities that do not including scrapping the current edition.
I believe the comment about the 1/4 rumor accuracy is a fair point to bring up. Based on the comments you've made about this so far, it seems like you're quick to jump to conclusions based on incomplete data sets. You played a weird game and now are saying 40K will go the route of fantasy. And worse off, you have no time tables to say when your suspicions will be proven or disproven. 8th edition could roll around and you could still make the claim that you played an early version of 9th or Age of Emperor.
But I still think it's something worth being aware of. Is GW in the trend of selling larger kits rather than multiple small boxes or are they just making sure every army has the ability to bring large centerpiece models? With Tau now having 4 different MC/GMC it's really hard for me to say they aren't.
Games-Workshop is a gakky company run by donkey-caves who have no business being in charge of anything, much less a multi-million dollar business. They have no business sense, have no idea what their priorities are, and have no idea how economics actually work or what their customers actually want.
If I could, I would buy the company from them, but I don't have that much money yet. Hopefully by the time I do have that much money GW will be in such dire straits that I can get it for cheaps then overhaul their old and fething gross business model into something that is profitable.
jonolikespie wrote: Personally I don't buy the argument that 40k is safe from getting the AoS treatment because 40k is the better selling of the two games.
Fantasy sales might have been dismal, meaning it needed it first, but 40k sales don't seem to be good by themselves.
I agree. GW started working of AoS before WFB went realy bad from no updates. IMO the changes they made to the game had less to do with the game and how it was, and more with what they claim as they own IP. That is why we have no dwarfs, elfs , orcs etc in the game. With the Total Warhammer game coming out in some time, they must have known about a DoW effec, but they still did it. I wonder what all the people will think about AoS and the fact that the world got blown up.
McNinja wrote: Games-Workshop is a gakky company run by donkey-caves who have no business being in charge of anything, much less a multi-million dollar business. They have no business sense, have no idea what their priorities are, and have no idea how economics actually work or what their customers actually want.
If I could, I would buy the company from them, but I don't have that much money yet. Hopefully by the time I do have that much money GW will be in such dire straits that I can get it for cheaps then overhaul their old and fething gross business model into something that is profitable.
Nope, they are the most businesses savy people. Because they can sell you an absurdly expensive plastic toy. The cost for designing a kit is $100,000. They have to sell so many kits just to break even.
I wished they would ditch the whole hobby concept and went full mainstream competitive gaming by mass producing cheap toys like hero clix and paying sweat shop children to paint them.
It is unfair to say GW's executives and decision makers are bad businessmen, they have hidden falling sales for years now, they have introduced some extraordinary cost cutting measures and they have made themselves very rich doing it.
I would say they do not understand their market ("We sell toys to kids")
They are arrogant ("Asking the market what it wants is otiose" "our customers favourite part of the hobby is buying things from games workshop")
And they are very unethical with their IP bullying (Spots the Space Marine, Chapterhouse)
They are also rather incompetent in their legal and IP departments (head of IP not knowing the difference between trademark and copywrite on the stand in the Chapterhous trial)
They also suck at the whole interacting with your customers, particularity bad in such a community driven industry (removing themselves from social media in favour of all comments/questions/discussions going through your local store's Facebook)
They don't even seem to understand their product, but they are GREAT accountants.
Nope, they are the most businesses savy people. Because they can sell you an absurdly expensive plastic toy. The cost for designing a kit is $100,000. They have to sell so many kits just to break even.
I'm interested in knowing where you got that figure from?
Nope, they are the most businesses savy people. Because they can sell you an absurdly expensive plastic toy. The cost for designing a kit is $100,000. They have to sell so many kits just to break even.
I'm interested in knowing where you got that figure from?
Nope, they are the most businesses savy people. Because they can sell you an absurdly expensive plastic toy. The cost for designing a kit is $100,000. They have to sell so many kits just to break even.
I'm interested in knowing where you got that figure from?
Once upon a time that was the reason most models were metal, because a metal mould would be cheap while the metal wasn't. It would make the best economical sense for small production runs and slow moving items. Plastic moulds cost tens of thousands at the time and you only offset that initial investment when you would have a high volume of sales. Once you pay off that initial investment though your box of tactical marines costs you 20 cents worth of plastic to make.
More recently however the plastic injection mould technology has come a LONG way and it must be very cheap for GW to be making named characters (some of the slowest moving items) in plastic, not to mention Limited Edition plastic models.
I have no idea what GW's current production costs are, but Tamiya have said their plastic moulds now only cost a fraction of what they used to.
A dogfighting game featuring iconic starfighters and pilots from the massively popular Star Wars, with simple rules that lead to complex tactics, and a sprinkling of special rules to add spice to the mix. All topped off with play straight out of the box ready painted models, cards and tokens for an experience that is as accessible as playing a wargame could be.
To put the prices in perspective, you can get an X Wing starter set with three 'planes' for about £20 to £25, and the add-on planes are about £10 to £12 each (more for large models like Millenium Falcon). Six to eight models a side will give quite an involved game, so you and a pal could get a really good set up for £100 to £150 each.
Thanks for the info. Sounded good until I checked the prices in Poland, one 'plane' costs as much as a squad of FWslol! Maybe the prices will get better if it gets more popular here.
More recently however the plastic injection mould technology has come a LONG way and it must be very cheap for GW to be making named characters (some of the slowest moving items) in plastic, not to mention Limited Edition plastic models.
Yeah the finecast characters are the worst thing, i.e. Shadowsun costs more than a box of pathfinders... srsly?
asorel wrote: I'm not suggesting that AoS was an intelligent decision, or that GW execs hold anything sacred. My point was that, on some level, they are aware that changing a product to such a major degree could have a negative impact on profits. Because Fantasy isn't as large a source of profit, GW decided that attempting a redesign was worth the risk, because they lost profit wouldn't break the company. In contrast, 40k is the franchise that is keeping the firm alive. Messing with it in any significant way is a very large risk where profits are concerned. I would imagine that it is for a similar reason that the timeline has remained frozen in place. Advancing it entails fixing something that already "works" to some degree. Age of the Emprah won't happen until true desperation sets in.
Considering the fact that GW (as Kilkrazy stated already, so I won't repeat the "signs" and reasons) keeps repeating the mistakes that led to FB's downfall, I think it's not that hard to see that AoS treatment is coming for 40k, whether we want it or not. It's just a matter of time - I mean, how much of a clusterfeth is 40k at the moment anyway?
And when the AoSification happens, the outcry will have all the power and resonance of Istvaan III's.
But, of course, it will never really be GW's fault, will it? I am sure GW (and their white knights) will find a way to spin it around so that the fault lies entirely on the shoulders of those evil tournament goers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Filch wrote: Nope, they are the most businesses savy people. Because they can sell you an absurdly expensive plastic toy. The cost for designing a kit is $100,000. They have to sell so many kits just to break even.
I wished they would ditch the whole hobby concept and went full mainstream competitive gaming by mass producing cheap toys like hero clix and paying sweat shop children to paint them.
But can they really, really sell that absurdly expensive plastic toy? Their sales figures, along with the scrapping of FB, seem to be pointing otherwise. The current GW managers are great leeches living off the brand that others (mostly we, the player base) created for them. But business-savy? No. fething. way.
The mid-year report in January will be interesting but possibly difficult to interpret.
If sales continue to fall, it will show that AoS has been a failure.
If sales are roughly level, it could mean that AoS is a success but 40K is continuing to decline, or it could mean that AoS is a minor failure and 40K is rallying.
Or sales may skyrocket!
In any case, the GW management will be able to compre the sales of AoS with the sales of WHFB over the first half of 2015, and they will be able to compare the sales of 40K with WHFB, and this will give them some idea of whether 40K could be successfully AoSified.
It will be very difficult to interpret indeed, especially since GW management do intend their reports to be so.
My best guess is that we will see some rise in sales in the January report, due to the AoS novelty-factor. The real deal will be the Annual Report, unless they have something up their sleeve to disguise any possible failing of AoS, of course (a CSM release comes to mind).
McNinja wrote: Games-Workshop is a gakky company run by donkey-caves who have no business being in charge of anything, much less a multi-million dollar business. They have no business sense, have no idea what their priorities are, and have no idea how economics actually work or what their customers actually want.
If I could, I would buy the company from them, but I don't have that much money yet. Hopefully by the time I do have that much money GW will be in such dire straits that I can get it for cheaps then overhaul their old and fething gross business model into something that is profitable.
If you want to change the company or it's culture, get together an investor group where everyone contributes small amounts of cash for a large stake in the company. It's actually not that hard to find other people who feel the same way you do.
The average investor is a fund working with money from elderly Northern European pensioners. They are seeking annual returns and dividends as a condition of their investment, and that's what GW provides.
There have been a lot of threads about what people would do if they were the CEO of GW. The answer no one wants to admit is they would act exactly the same way as current management b/c GW gets the job done when it comes to their investor's interests. The company would go down really, really fast without access to capital.
I wouldn't worry too much, if it should fall a company that big with a game and fallowing as large as it is would be snatched up quickly. It would't e long before we'd see a new rules set, and hey they could feth up as bad as GW.
McNinja wrote: Games-Workshop is a gakky company run by donkey-caves who have no business being in charge of anything, much less a multi-million dollar business. They have no business sense, have no idea what their priorities are, and have no idea how economics actually work or what their customers actually want.
If I could, I would buy the company from them, but I don't have that much money yet. Hopefully by the time I do have that much money GW will be in such dire straits that I can get it for cheaps then overhaul their old and fething gross business model into something that is profitable.
If you want to change the company or it's culture, get together an investor group where everyone contributes small amounts of cash for a large stake in the company. It's actually not that hard to find other people who feel the same way you do.
The average investor is a fund working with money from elderly Northern European pensioners. They are seeking annual returns and dividends as a condition of their investment, and that's what GW provides.
There have been a lot of threads about what people would do if they were the CEO of GW. The answer no one wants to admit is they would act exactly the same way as current management b/c GW gets the job done when it comes to their investor's interests. The company would go down really, really fast without access to capital.
I had thought of that before but trusting that everyone wants the samething is the catch.
However, I disagree about the CEO thing, GW does no market research and doesn't care too. They say that 80% of their market is collectors and hobbyist and there are very few players. I ask how do they know this? Hundreds of people go to wargame conventions just to play. So for every 300 people at a event like Nova and Adepticon there are 1200 buyers in the collector category. it doesn't add up. I'd wager that number is reversed easily. So, I'd do market research and find out for sure.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: It will be very difficult to interpret indeed, especially since GW management do intend their reports to be so.
My best guess is that we will see some rise in sales in the January report, due to the AoS novelty-factor. The real deal will be the Annual Report, unless they have something up their sleeve to disguise any possible failing of AoS, of course (a CSM release comes to mind).
I concur.
I think AoS will have been quite successful to start with, The starter set is widely seen as good value and apparently has sold well. However the game needs to build a significant long term audience to be financially successful. I am not convinced that GW know how to achieve this, based on their bad record with WHFB and recently with 40K too. (Let's remember that 40K still appears to be losing customers.)
More cracks in the armour could appear in the end of year report.
