Yeah let's predict the success of a system that has been out for less than 3 days.
Does there need to be another thread where doomsayers rant about how bad Warhammer + is and call anyone who disagrees with them GW shills?
"worth it" in a case like this is gonna depend. I'm sure there are lots of people who don't think it is and dismiss anyone who disagrees as "GW shills" but many people likely find it to be worthwhile. I've not subbed yet, I'm waiting a week for the reviews to trickle in, and GW to sort of it's biggest problems with the service but I'll def give it a try.
If you compare it to similar services, at a similar price point, then no. I can't see how it could possibly be deemed 'worth it' right now. There simply isn't enough novel content currently. I think GW realise this too, and have provided incentives to stay subscribed outside of the bank of content they have available.
But.
It is early days. For it to become the service I'd hope we all would like it to be, it needs to be supported. It really can only grow right now. Honestly, where as I'd have to vote 'no' right at this moment, I choose to remain hopeful, and think it'd be more interesting (and telling) to have a poll like this, this time next year.
Success is relative. I think it will chug along thanks to the devoted nature of the fanbase, but it's never going to set the world ablaze. As others have said though, it's far too early to tell.
GW has a habit of constraining other formats of media by making them try and sell models; that's why the Dawn of War series died, and why every character class in the newer RPGs is a specific model GW sells, why every recent novel reads like someone tried to pour a thin layer of narrative over what's still pretty obviously just a battle report, and why the best licensed video games of recent years are the ones where the minis they represent are all out of print and there's no pressure from marketing. I fully expect this platform to be a collection of commercials that irritate viewers more than anything else.
I'm pretty happy with it so far, I've enjoyed looking through the hobby articles in white dwarf, and watching the video content already out.
I already paid for the 40k app, so this is a no brainer for me, and I'm pleasantly surprised by the quality.
Granted, it's hard to make a lasting impression until we see how the content release goes, and when we start to see some of the new shows which have been announced.
Not worth it for me at the moment. The preview animation they released was fine but not something I'd be willing to pay for if it's representative of the quality of the service as a whole. The app is still a pile of garbage so holds no value. I can get the batreps and painting videos on YT. The models are decent but I have an assassin already. GW might retail models like that at £25+ but they're not actually worth that to me so the added value there isn't a factor in getting a sub.
If they'd have had more of the animation content on day one I might have got a one-month sub but given there's about an hour of animation I just can't see the point.
Apple fox wrote: I think it will succeed no matter how bad it is.
GW really does not need to put that much effort in to keep people paying.
If it does fail, then I would be curious in how GW managed it.
This. GW could out a dried up dog gak in a box, give it the Primaris keyword and people would buy it and defend doing so. I wasn't interested to start with then when I found out they purged the rules that aren't current from the Vault documents and only left the fluff and don't even have the 90s WDs yet my interest somehow sank even lower.
Recently I saw a post where someone said if you expect WH+ to be Warhammer Netflix you'll be disappointed, but thinking of it as an alternative to a White Dwarf subscription is more appropriate. I think that's a very fair comparison as there's a decent range of hobby-related content. The cost of the annual subscription minus gift voucher works out at under £3.50 per month, almost half the cost of WD. With the app and model on top that was low enough for me to roll the dice and try it out.
I reckon GW made a mistake by originally giving the impression that animations were the bulk of the subscription, as there aren't enough of them to justify it for most people. However for people who will use at least some of the other features there might be enough content.
I haven't voted either way yet as I'm waiting to see how much new content we get each week. Providing GW don't trickle out 1 episode at a time then it'll probably be worthwhile for me.
Apple fox wrote: I think it will succeed no matter how bad it is.
GW really does not need to put that much effort in to keep people paying.
If it does fail, then I would be curious in how GW managed it.
I don't think you understand how expensive streaming services are to run, disney+ for example has around 94 million subs and all of the Disney content and it doesn't break even.
You have to run servers 24/7 365 a year, need to have a high enough bandwidth to meet demand, that has to be housed someplace, utilities need to be paid, you have to have staff that know how to service servers such isn't cheap.
Many company's have tried to copy Netflix, almost all have failed because they just don't have enough content to retain people.
Tepid so far. Much will depend on how frequent and constant content will be released. Quality is also a big question mark at this point. Both series do suffer from janky animation, so there is a lot of room for improvement. They do hit the nail in terms of aesthetic and atmosphere, though, so I'm still quite optimistic about the whole thing and eager to see more.
I think the whole idea of warhammer+ is utter fail
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gert wrote: Yeah let's predict the success of a system that has been out for less than 3 days.
Does there need to be another thread where doomsayers rant about how bad Warhammer + is and call anyone who disagrees with them GW shills?
Yay for excessive forum gatekeeping where said forum is already heavily over moderated with topics shut down
Gert wrote: Have you got a source for the Disney + thing?
So my numbers were old they've apparently passed 100million since I last looked.
The following article contains some guesswork, their also not accounting for the fact that not all subscribers are in America so you don't for example pay as much in India or poland.
But as the article mentions their paying more to make content than they are taking in from subs, a problem most similar platforms have including Netflix at some points.
Gert wrote: Yeah let's predict the success of a system that has been out for less than 3 days.
Does there need to be another thread where doomsayers rant about how bad Warhammer + is and call anyone who disagrees with them GW shills?
Yay for excessive forum gatekeeping where said forum is already heavily over moderated with topics shut down
Well...if you want to show level of ignorance by predicting how it ends in first day.,..be my guest. You only make yourself look silly
I'm never opposed people making fools out of themselves. Good comedy.
So my numbers were old they've apparently passed 100million since I last looked.
The following article contains some guesswork, their also not accounting for the fact that not all subscribers are in America so you don't for example pay as much in India or poland.
But as the article mentions their paying more to make content than they are taking in from subs, a problem most similar platforms have including Netflix at some points.
Having read the article, thats not what it says. Disney is planning to spend $14-16 billion on streaming content by 2024, with the current spending being half of that.
Its estimated that 2021 will net $10b, on top of the $4.5b from 2020. So that cost for producing content has theoretically already been reimbursed, assuming the $10b estimate holds up.
Of course 2020/21 has obviously been a bumper period due to Covid and the numbers might drop, not significantly but a drop nonetheless.
Actually given we have multiple examples of streaming services being launched and failing it's fully possible to make comparisons and predictions.
You can look at paramount plus, they launched with no new content, their bid to draw people in was star trek discovery.
This failed badly and was so poorly received it even soured relations with Netflix their international distributor to the point they refused to buy Picard and laughed the show runners out the office when they overspent at the start of season two and tried to sell them short treks for 50 million.
Now it's being merged with another service because it never came close to being profitable.
If you have too little content people will not stay.
Gert wrote: Yeah let's predict the success of a system that has been out for less than 3 days.
Does there need to be another thread where doomsayers rant about how bad Warhammer + is and call anyone who disagrees with them GW shills?
Yay for excessive forum gatekeeping where said forum is already heavily over moderated with topics shut down
Well...if you want to show level of ignorance by predicting how it ends in first day.,..be my guest. You only make yourself look silly
I'm never opposed people making fools out of themselves. Good comedy.
and if I'm right who looks silly then?
As for the "ignorance" comment, well well well.... this is certainly not "the first day".
We're already seen a lack of goodwill of GW to the community type debacles over and over.
Going after creators is already a tacit admission from GW that warhammer+ can't compete. Furthermore, GW is venturing into a realm of inexperience.
lol, their marketing team couldn't even come up with an original name for the streaming service, they just copied someone else haha yeah that gives me so much faith that they're putting a solid effort into this
So my numbers were old they've apparently passed 100million since I last looked.
The following article contains some guesswork, their also not accounting for the fact that not all subscribers are in America so you don't for example pay as much in India or poland.
But as the article mentions their paying more to make content than they are taking in from subs, a problem most similar platforms have including Netflix at some points.
Having read the article, thats not what it says. Disney is planning to spend $14-16 billion on streaming content by 2024, with the current spending being half of that.
Its estimated that 2021 will net $10b, on top of the $4.5b from 2020. So that cost for producing content has theoretically already been reimbursed, assuming the $10b estimate holds up.
Of course 2020/21 has obviously been a bumper period due to Covid and the numbers might drop, not significantly but a drop nonetheless.
As I said it's assuming things incorrectly with its estimations because it's assuming all the subscribers are american, I did mention that previously.
If it spent 7 billion (being generous with the assumption) but made 4.5 billion, then as I said it's not breaking even, which at the start of a streaming service is fully expected.
Disney plus was given out free with a lot of deals for between 6-12 months so although it's got 100 million subs, they Arnt all paying subs yet, only time will tell if they can retain those people.
This is Disney with decades of movies and shows and they have not yet made a profit, warhammer plus offers far less content.
I'm really not able to judge. Personally I don't like streaming services very much and I don't even have netflix. So it was obvious to me that I wouldn't be interested in the GW service. The "free" miniature is a gimmick as far as I am concerned and I really hate subscription services for minis, because I want to be able to choose what I am getting. I thought the Vindicare was a ridiculous mini for example, and have no interest in it, so it's not really adding value to the offering to me.
The rest of the content is stuff I can easily find for free on youtube without the corporate gloss, which tends to allow for more creativity and authenticity.
That said, I'm not sure if it will succeed for fail. I'm probably not typical and many people seem to think the subscription is good value. I think the attitude that these people are idiots or lack discernment is a poor one and those of us who are not interested should not be making that argument. It's just about what people see value in or don't and there's no reason to get uptight about other people's luxury spending.
I think a lot depends on their overheads and corporate management to be honest. If they have someone who knows what they are doing keeping costs down and keeping a close eye on what impacts subscription numbers, it might work. If it's a half baked corporate daydream by someone who wishes they worked at a more exciting corporation, or who wants to put this on their CV so they can make a move into a different field, then it will probably fail.
Gert wrote: Yeah let's predict the success of a system that has been out for less than 3 days.
Does there need to be another thread where doomsayers rant about how bad Warhammer + is and call anyone who disagrees with them GW shills?
Coming back to this comment, it's almost like we are on a type of forum, where discussion is to be had......why are you here if you deem the entire concept inappropriate?
hobojebus wrote: As I said it's assuming things incorrectly with its estimations because it's assuming all the subscribers are american, I did mention that previously.
It doesn't say either way, all the article discusses is how many users there are and how much money the platform is making. As a side note, these are the prices for Disney + in each country it operates in:
Spoiler:
Argentina (ARS$ 385/3.850)
Australia ($11.99/$119.99)
Austria (8,99 €/89,99 €)
Belgium (8,99 €/89,99 €)
Brazil (BRL$ 27,90/279,90)
Canada ($11.99 CAD/$119.99 CAD)
Chile (CLP$ 6.500/64.900)
Colombia (COP$ 23.900/239.900)
Costa Rica (USD$ 5,99/59,99)
Denmark (79 DKK/790 DKK)
Finland (8,99 €/89,99 €)
France (8,99 €/89,99 €)
Germany (8,99 €/89,99 €)
Greenland (59 DKK, 589 DKK)
Iceland (8,99 €/89,99 €)
India (As Disney+ Hotstar, Rs 299/Rs 1,499)
Indonesia (As Disney+ Hotstar, Rp 39,000/Rp 199,000)
Ireland (8,99 €/89,99 €)
Italy (8,99 €/89,99 €)
Japan (¥700)
Luxembourg (8,99 €/89,99 €)
Monaco (8,99 €/89,99 €)
Mexico (MXN$ 159/1.599)
Netherlands (8,99 €/89,99 €)
New Zealand ($11.99/$119.99)
Norway (89 NOK/890 NOK)
Panama (USD$ 5,99/59,99)
Peru (PEN$ 25,90/259,90)
Portugal (8,99 €/89,99 €)
Singapore (S$11.98/$119.98)
Spain (8,99 €/89,99 €)
Sweden (89 SEK/890 SEK)
Switzerland (12.90 CHF/129 CHF)
United Kingdom (£7.99/£79.99)
United States ($6.99/$69.99)
Uruguay (USD$ 7.49/74.99)
Pretty consistent numbers if you ask me.
Disney plus was given out free with a lot of deals for between 6-12 months so although it's got 100 million subs, they Arnt all paying subs yet, only time will tell if they can retain those people.
Considering that data from Disney is showing a continued increase in users despite there no longer being free periods, a price increase that came into effect this year in March, and the fact that services that offered free Disney + like NowTV are likely to have paid for the deal, IMO your point doesn't hold up.
This is Disney with decades of movies and shows and they have not yet made a profit, warhammer plus offers far less content.
It also costs far less to produce content, doesn't need to hire as many staff, and overall offers different content to that of Disney + (the subscriptions to the two Warhammer apps for example).
Can you also show me a product that made back all of its costs in one year?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
GoldenHorde wrote: Coming back to this comment, it's almost like we are on a type of forum, where discussion is to be had......why are you here if you deem the entire concept inappropriate?
Almost like you didn't actually read what I wrote and made a bad assumption that has no basis in reality.
So my numbers were old they've apparently passed 100million since I last looked.
The following article contains some guesswork, their also not accounting for the fact that not all subscribers are in America so you don't for example pay as much in India or poland.
But as the article mentions their paying more to make content than they are taking in from subs, a problem most similar platforms have including Netflix at some points.
Having read the article, thats not what it says. Disney is planning to spend $14-16 billion on streaming content by 2024, with the current spending being half of that.
Its estimated that 2021 will net $10b, on top of the $4.5b from 2020. So that cost for producing content has theoretically already been reimbursed, assuming the $10b estimate holds up.
Of course 2020/21 has obviously been a bumper period due to Covid and the numbers might drop, not significantly but a drop nonetheless.
As I said it's assuming things incorrectly with its estimations because it's assuming all the subscribers are american, I did mention that previously.
If it spent 7 billion (being generous with the assumption) but made 4.5 billion, then as I said it's not breaking even, which at the start of a streaming service is fully expected.
Disney plus was given out free with a lot of deals for between 6-12 months so although it's got 100 million subs, they Arnt all paying subs yet, only time will tell if they can retain those people.
This is Disney with decades of movies and shows and they have not yet made a profit, warhammer plus offers far less content.
One of the biggest expense is creation of the content, and making content the audience wants. GW has a big fan base that are when it comes to streaming platforms, probably quite easy to please.
We should compare it more to something like miniwargaming I think, if they can make something work in this space GW should be able to.
Painting tutorial lasting 20 mins, not very costly for the time it takes to make.
Batreps, even if they had full campaigns probably still not even close to a TV show production time.
There big expense is the cartoons, which are coming at a much more sedate pace than Disney or Netflix.
With the minis as a big incentive, they could during a thin month drop a free mini for all subs that have been on the platform for 6 months. And then sell the mini on the store after.
Unless the GW hobby is much smaller than we expect, I just don’t see GW really stuffing it up that bad. I can’t imagine they have cost it outside the support of like 20k subs at this point. With growth as the aim.
I can see it succeeding for a year or so but it depends how consistent the content is over a year. It will never have huge budgets for animation, the hobby content will be in constant competition with youtube as will the battle reports. It whether the extras like the WD archive (which I hope gets better need some more of the older issues), app subscriptions and miniatures can carry it.
for me, i plan to sub on payday. I am already a sub to the 40K app at £3 a month, and personally find it worth it as a lookup tool (yes i have Battlescribe, no i dont find that as easy for quick reference), so getting access to the rest of it for basicaly £3 Extra is a pretty easy sell to me.
in the long run? i dont know, it depends on a lot of the future content they create or host. they could easily have some intresting GW related content, like features on GW ran tourneys, extended meta discussions with high level players, interview with design staff to big up new releases, a live Q and A session with some rules guys to generate FAQ type stuff, run an extended kill team campaign series which follows several months of gameplay, early previews of certain stuff (say, do the WH+ reveals 24hrs early), etc, etc.
obviously the animations and such will continue, but i doubt they can make enough form the 40K community to make the enterprise self-profitable on the strength of those animations alone. they'll really need to make sure they have strong secondary elements once people have watched the vids to keep the subscribers subbed, or just accept it might be non-profitable in and of itself, but it might increase the profits of the company as a whole if it keeps generating sales of plastic crack.
jeff white wrote: Simple poll, will Warhammer Plus succeed or fail and why?
You'd have to define success or failure first, along with whose success and whose failure.
How does GW define success? How do their customers define success? For customers it will depend on their individual tastes and opinions. Et cetera. Personally, it's a non-starter for me for a variety of reasons.
For one, almost never watch TV. Will toss battle reports and lore videos up on YouTube while painting/assembling, but what's already out there is plenty.
The models don't interest me.
Very rarely order items from GW's website. The price is higher than FLGS, eBay, or resellers, and the shipping takes much longer. That makes the website voucher less valuable to me.
FOMO doesn't work on me, so any sort of limited time offer doesn't move the needle.
And so on. For me it just isn't something that meets any sort of need or desire.
I am enjoying the Warhammer+ content. It's a bit anemic on the show side, but with more old White Dwarves and lore books, along with animations and more, I can't complain.
I do feel like it is a misnomer to call this a streaming service as this includes a great deal more than just streaming the few TV shows they have.
Eldarsif wrote: I am enjoying the Warhammer+ content. It's a bit anemic on the show side, but with more old White Dwarves and lore books, along with animations and more, I can't complain.
I do feel like it is a misnomer to call this a streaming service as this includes a great deal more than just streaming the few TV shows they have.
I think having the app not have all the content is a bit of a issue here, I don’t even know where to get all the content I get. They need a FAQ in there app with some links!
Typical GW design honestly.
Did Games Workshop call it a streaming service? I mean, the name was certainly chosen to jump on the "Company Name Plus" streaming service naming bandwagon...
I think having the app not have all the content is a bit of a issue here, I don’t even know where to get all the content I get. They need a FAQ in there app with some links!
Typical GW design honestly.
They definitely could improve on the frontend of their service and I am not a fan of the idea of separating the service into 3+ apps(WHTV, AoS, 40k, and probably more in the future), but the content I am getting currently I do like.
If you like the model it's a no brainer ( no to mention the voucher ). Then you can always ditch it after the first year if you don't like what pops in.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh. And ep 2 of Hammer and Bolter is proper grimdark.
Watched the animations, the 40k bat rep, and 2 painting tutorials. So the bulk of what’s up there now. I enjoyed what I watched.
With the “free” mini, and the voucher I feel I’m getting my money’s worth. Yes, it’s very thin on launch. But when you consider what you get, the $/hr of entertainment is actually pretty good.
I expect its going to lose money in the long term, so I'm going to guess "fail".
There needs to be a continuous stream of content for people to keep using it, and there isn't much right now. Contracting animators to produce such content isn't cheap. In addition, the content actually needs to be high profile enough that people decide they need it in their life.
Disney+ wasn't doing well until The Mandalorian happened, and even then there were like mass cancelations after the first season, and it took kind of a steady stream of high profile shows to get the engine going. And that's Disney, who literally specialize in making popular content and had massive backlogs of popular shows and movies to binge watch on release.
It won't take much to make it break even, GW is known for paying bottom-barrel wages as we all know by now. I wouldn't be surprised if they're paying the animators freelance rather than a salary, and probably at very low per-episode rates. After all, rather than produce their own, they basically just found a bunch of youtubers and threatened them with being shut down if they didn't take the deal. It's not exactly the actions of a company that is prepared to invest lots of money.
Most of the other stuff is stuff they used to do for free anyway, and it's all basically just advertising for their miniatures. So really W+ is just a way to get people to pay GW for the privilege of being advertised to, and every dollar that comes in that way is pretty much profit compared to if they didn't get it. The costs of running the service are probably pretty minimal.
So do I think it's a good thing? Not really. Is it going to make a lot of money? I doubt it. But it might still break even, and even if it doesn't, it's still probably a win for GW. The only way this goes badly is if they actually invest money in it, and there are zero signs that is the case.
I'm not entirely sure how there are "zero signs" that there is investment going into Warhammer + when GW specifically hired people to run it, produce content for it and hired people outside of the company norm for said content. Did you forget that there were casting calls mid-2020? Or that the presenter team was expanded again just a couple of weeks ago? It's not Amazon or Disney levels of investment but it was never going to be for a company making a tiny fraction of what most companies with media platforms do.
GW is in the business of selling miniatures and WH+ is actually a limited miniature subscription with added benefits.
Yeah. This is sort of why I'd be surprised if it totally failed.
There will be complaining - and people selling the minis on secondary markets probably at high prices etc - but arguably a subscription service as another sales channel might work very well. We always get debates over how much models cost to design - and then print/ship etc, but to my mind its sufficiently low GW can keep playing with the offer with relatively little downside.
If they abandon the freebies and it becomes "pay £5 a month to watch our animations" then I suspect its dead - but there's no obvious reason it would go that way.
Nevelon wrote: Watched the animations, the 40k bat rep, and 2 painting tutorials. So the bulk of what’s up there now. I enjoyed what I watched.
With the “free” mini, and the voucher I feel I’m getting my money’s worth. Yes, it’s very thin on launch. But when you consider what you get, the $/hr of entertainment is actually pretty good.
This. I've watched all the WH+-exclusive videos and enjoyed them all. Animation is a bit janky at times, but acceptable (this is coming from someone who's a fan of the Dead SpaceEU so I've had to grit my teeth through Downfall and Aftermath's animation, which is way worse than anything on WH+). Bat reps are solid and I actually enjoy that they're all-killer-no-filler at a lean 60 minutes each. Too many bat reps stretch out longer than they really need to. Citadel Masterclass was also really interesting - I don't think I'll ever reach the level of patience or dedication where I'd spend that much time on a single face, but wet blending was a really cool technique that I can see myself being able to pull off. Also, maybe I'm in the minority, but I actually appreciate that there's not an overwhelming amount of content right now, it'll give me a week to catch up on everything in my limited free time. Of course, we'll have to see how this holds up over time and whether they add a reasonable amount of content on a weekly basis, but for now I've enjoyed what I've gotten. And also, for what it's worth, I've already been getting more use out of WH+ than I have out of my Netflix subscription.
Gert wrote: Yeah let's predict the success of a system that has been out for less than 3 days.
Does there need to be another thread where doomsayers rant about how bad Warhammer + is and call anyone who disagrees with them GW shills?
Thank you for this.
Honestly, considering the Ork and Vindicare model are likely going to be 40 bucks each, you get a 15 buck voucher, and save 2 months by buying the 12 month subscription, you can get the W+ sub and effectively you're paying for one of the models. Everything else is just a bonus.
If you don't want anything else, and you don't even want the model in the end, you can get it and flip it on Ebay. Then, you'll likely get the entire year sub for free by that point.
The voucher isn’t for you, it’s for GW to sell you more stuff ;p
I think for the money it will really depend on what’s coming.
More minis would keep me subbed even if I donating them to the shop if the kill team batreps are any good.
The quality on the batreps seem good enough, seen better but for a payed survace they could be worse.
But 40k is such a bland game to watch, standard 40k is just bad. It really held everything down in that battle report.
The painting was good, not fantastic. If they are willing to go all out and not be a big advertisement for there own products then it’s got value and I would be happy with watching it every week.
ultimately I think I agree with the sentiment that "if you want a digital whtie dwarf this is for you. if you're seriously thinking this is supposed to be "the netflix of warhammer" you're gonna be dissappointed"
Stormonu wrote: I’m having flashbacks to Warhammer Visions and their record label. I have no expectation this will survive beyond a year or maybe, two.
Well given that both GW and Streaming services are in a "golden age" (financially) it would be really difficult for this to flop.
Perhaps GW is doing 10 times less money and having much less proyection by doing his own in house pseudo streaming service than giv8ng the rights of the series to amazon or netflix... But thats another issue.
GW is in the business of selling miniatures and WH+ is actually a limited miniature subscription with added benefits.
This is why I've not really been too outspoken on WH+ beyond the fact that I don't want it. Its feels a LOT like GW wanted to do some kind of loot box subscription but saw that that fad was dying or didn't want to gove away a bunch of mini or peoduce more merch so they decided to go another direction. Buy the special mini, gets some digital stuff and streaming services are the new loot boxes. If there was no mini I'd be bitching till the sun went down. Saying that the minis are rubbish IMO.
The only thing I'm curious about is how the batrep turned out. Did it actually use decent armies and use them properly or was it their usual advert with some dice rolling style from WD?
Gert wrote: I'm not entirely sure how there are "zero signs" that there is investment going into Warhammer + when GW specifically hired people to run it, produce content for it and hired people outside of the company norm for said content. Did you forget that there were casting calls mid-2020? Or that the presenter team was expanded again just a couple of weeks ago? It's not Amazon or Disney levels of investment but it was never going to be for a company making a tiny fraction of what most companies with media platforms do.
Well clearly no new content daily is sign of no investement for some
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apple fox wrote: The voucher isn’t for you, it’s for GW to sell you more stuff ;p
Still unless you have stopped buying gw models entirely(at which point you aren't target market anyway) it's less money you need to spend to models to get them.
tneva82 wrote: Still unless you have stopped buying gw models entirely(at which point you aren't target market anyway) it's less money you need to spend to models to get them.
Though to be fair, a GW store voucher usually just pays for the discount you are missing out on for not ordering at a third party store.
tneva82 wrote: Still unless you have stopped buying gw models entirely(at which point you aren't target market anyway) it's less money you need to spend to models to get them.
Though to be fair, a GW store voucher usually just pays for the discount you are missing out on for not ordering at a third party store.
Depends on what you do with it. The voucher is 12€, you get free shipping above 25€ at present. If that doesn't change until October, you can order in the vicinity of the latter and effectively get a 25% to 40% discount, or thereabouts. An independent store can't beat that.
You just have to have something you want in that price range, and not order in bulk from GW direct. Then the voucher is a pretty good deal.
Whilst I’ve enjoyed what was on there from launch, it’s not enough of a sample to make a judgement upon.
The battle reports move at a decent place, and the production values are solid. But both are fairly straight forward pick up type games. They’re a good follow on to How To Play, but don’t show off any particular facet of the hobby. In future, I hope for narrative games, campaign series and even tournament winner head to heads. What will we get remains to be seen.
Animations? Perfectly enjoyable. Hammer & Bolter has three decent stories, if fairly stylistic animation. Angels of Death is a feast for the eyes, but due to episodic nature we don’t really say of the story is much cop.
Loremasters is something I’m looking forward to, but isn’t up yet. Likely due to Wade’s illness.
The Painting Masterclasses are superb. Clear and concise explanation, clear camera angles.
Warhammer Vault. Well, I’ve read all the titles before, barring Ghaz. But it’s nice to have, and I’m hopeful we’ll get proper rarities.
Price wise? I signed up for a year and went with the Vindicare. My £50 has bought me a £10 voucher and a £25 model. But even without that? For what I’ve compared to a live action White Dwarf? I’m getting my monies worth. Hell, I pay £3.90 a month for Viz, the UK’s swearirst, most five weekliest grin-mag, a comic of puerile adult humour it takes me about 40 minutes to read cover to cover. Viewed that way, I’m happy with the value I’m extracting.
But whether this will grow or potentially fizzle out? Who knows.
Gert wrote: I'm not entirely sure how there are "zero signs" that there is investment going into Warhammer + when GW specifically hired people to run it, produce content for it and hired people outside of the company norm for said content. Did you forget that there were casting calls mid-2020? Or that the presenter team was expanded again just a couple of weeks ago? It's not Amazon or Disney levels of investment but it was never going to be for a company making a tiny fraction of what most companies with media platforms do.
Well clearly no new content daily is sign of no investement for some
20 year olds on YouTube are able to maintain daily upload schedules with decent quality and editing, I don't see why a international corporation with a paid streaming service couldn't arrange a schedule that has daily new content, look, its easy:
Monday: New animated short
Tuesday: 40k Batrep
Wednesday: Painting tutorial
Thursday: AoS batrep
Friday: lore video
Saturday: overview of the weeks releases/preorders
Sunday: specialist game batrep
Thats not even getting into other stuff like making of content, licensed video game content, retrospectives, livestreams for painting, art and batreps, VoDs, interviews, documentaries etc.
tneva82 wrote: Still unless you have stopped buying gw models entirely(at which point you aren't target market anyway) it's less money you need to spend to models to get them.
Though to be fair, a GW store voucher usually just pays for the discount you are missing out on for not ordering at a third party store.
That assumes you get discount on everything but gw has lots of kits "web store item". These have so ridiculously small margin for 3rd party to order they are running practically negative on them and so is more of customer service to keep players happy. Generally no discount here. So the vouchers is actually way to have discount on where normally no discount.
Furthermore said items are not sent to 3rd party on their usual refills resultrng in delivery times longer than direct from gw. I average about month via flgs(record was 8 months...), direct from gw about week.
This is why i'm happy enough when they do buy x, get y voucher. Just recently my cities of sigmar got hefty reinforcements paying less than usual thanks to those. And got faster to boot. Via flgs i might still be waiting rather than have 2k painted.
Edit: plus above math. I'll get 12e voucher so for something in ballbark of 25e for free shipping i get way more than discounts here(10% so 3rd party equals when i buy 120e. I'll be damned if i can't find something less than that at which point flgs can't equal. Even 20% discount would pale and nobody here has 20% discount).
tneva82 wrote: Still unless you have stopped buying gw models entirely(at which point you aren't target market anyway) it's less money you need to spend to models to get them.
Though to be fair, a GW store voucher usually just pays for the discount you are missing out on for not ordering at a third party store.
That assumes you get discount on everything but gw has lots of kits "web store item". These have so ridiculously small margin for 3rd party to order they are running practically negative on them and so is more of customer service to keep players happy. Generally no discount here. So the vouchers is actually way to have discount on where normally no discount.
Furthermore said items are not sent to 3rd party on their usual refills resultrng in delivery times longer than direct from gw. I average about month via flgs(record was 8 months...), direct from gw about week.
This is why i'm happy enough when they do buy x, get y voucher. Just recently my cities of sigmar got hefty reinforcements paying less than usual thanks to those. And got faster to boot. Via flgs i might still be waiting rather than have 2k painted.
Edit: plus above math. I'll get 12e voucher so for something in ballbark of 25e for free shipping i get way more than discounts here(10% so 3rd party equals when i buy 120e. I'll be damned if i can't find something less than that at which point flgs can't equal. Even 20% discount would pale and nobody here has 20% discount).
We cannot keep the voucher for long, it’s just easy marketing. I subbed, so I am in the market, but also waiting for them to redo a Eldar line. And everything costs too much here, so it doesn’t cover much and would need to purchase a bit to get free postage. Anything I want i have to pay half the voucher value in postage still unless I buy more.
Well there's not much gw has that you get for less than free shipping quota besides paints.
It's basically spend 13e to get 25e, hard trme seeing month i don't speed at least 13e. If nothing else paints i go through at rate that's not unreasonable expectation and 13/25 is discount flgs won't be able to match.
tneva82 wrote: Well there's not much gw has that you get for less than free shipping quota besides paints.
It's basically spend 13e to get 25e, hard trme seeing month i don't speed at least 13e. If nothing else paints i go through at rate that's not unreasonable expectation and 13/25 is discount flgs won't be able to match.
I rarely use GW paints.
But, really it’s just knowing how your being marketed too and how easy it is to manipulate into a sale. Everyone is, if you already plan to buy something then it’s just lining up with something you do need.
But as said, Vauchers are not for you as a customer, they are to promote something as a good deal and make you spend money.
They could have offer a free month and it would have been better, but that would have mean they got no money. Rather than some money. And if someone is compelled to purchase something on top of the sub, as you note. Basically nothing they sell will not mean having to pay more money.
Voucher is actually worth more than free month. Free month saves me 6 euros. Voucher saves me 12. Sure if you buy no gw stuff whatsoever free month is wortu more. But if you buy no gw stuff whatsoever you would be unlikely to sub for warhammer+ for 1e a year.
tneva82 wrote: Voucher is actually worth more than free month. Free month saves me 6 euros. Voucher saves me 12. Sure if you buy no gw stuff whatsoever free month is wortu more. But if you buy no gw stuff whatsoever you would be unlikely to sub for warhammer+ for 1e a year.
But to GW a voucher is worth so much less. Promoting it as anything more than marketing is just free marketing for GW.
There is plenty of people who don’t buy regularly from GW for a number of reasons.
They even make more money by getting a sale though there web store, rather than a store many people in the hobby may prefer to purchase from.
it’s entirely a win for GW, and people are easy to market it as a good thing for them.
tneva82 wrote: Voucher is actually worth more than free month. Free month saves me 6 euros. Voucher saves me 12. Sure if you buy no gw stuff whatsoever free month is wortu more. But if you buy no gw stuff whatsoever you would be unlikely to sub for warhammer+ for 1e a year.
But to GW a voucher is worth so much less. Promoting it as anything more than marketing is just free marketing for GW.
There is plenty of people who don’t buy regularly from GW for a number of reasons.
They even make more money by getting a sale though there web store, rather than a store many people in the hobby may prefer to purchase from.
it’s entirely a win for GW, and people are easy to market it as a good thing for them.
... if you'd never buy from GW how likely are you going to be a WH+ subscriber? seriously dude it sounds like you're looking for things to complain about at this time
tneva82 wrote: Voucher is actually worth more than free month. Free month saves me 6 euros. Voucher saves me 12. Sure if you buy no gw stuff whatsoever free month is wortu more. But if you buy no gw stuff whatsoever you would be unlikely to sub for warhammer+ for 1e a year.
But to GW a voucher is worth so much less. Promoting it as anything more than marketing is just free marketing for GW.
There is plenty of people who don’t buy regularly from GW for a number of reasons.
They even make more money by getting a sale though there web store, rather than a store many people in the hobby may prefer to purchase from.
it’s entirely a win for GW, and people are easy to market it as a good thing for them.
... if you'd never buy from GW how likely are you going to be a WH+ subscriber? seriously dude it sounds like you're looking for things to complain about at this time
I am subbed, I buy from FLGs.
Unless you know the future, GW isn’t realising anything new soon I want.
Bit regardless, being aware of marketing tricks and manipulation isn’t some big conspiracy or anti GW.
People should always be aware of business tricks.
As we are all targeted buy it all the time. If you think you are immune, you really are likely not.
Well clearly no new content daily is sign of no investement for some
Disney +, Netflix and Amazon Prime have no investment by that logic since none of those platforms release new content daily.
I'm going to chalk a lot of the complaints up to the expectation that every episode of a series should be available from day 1, something thats only happened since streaming services began to gain traction and binge watching became popular. When Netflix and Prime began releasing new shows with one episode a week, like good old fashioned TV programmes, people whined because they weren't getting the whole show immediately.
IMO Warhammer + having weekly content dumps is much better for the long term. It also means I have another way of tracking what day it is now that Bad Batch has finished
disney it seems would agree with you Gert. and IMHO their decision bore weight, christmas of 2019 people where talking about the mandalorian but not the witcher
Apple fox wrote: There is plenty of people who don’t buy regularly from GW for a number of reasons.
The question is, how many of those people that don't buy regularly also don't have a wishlist of things they might get under the right circumstances? If you are interested in a Warhammer+ subscription, I'd argue that you are an active customer in one capacity or other. I don't know how the numbers compare in Australia, but the ones I gave for Germany are pretty clear. You can get an above 40% discount using this voucher if you are after some specific things, and the selection of kits that still offer you a 25% discount or higher is very large. In my opinion there is appeal in that. The voucher is no doubt a circumstantial bonus, but hardly covers only a narrow set of circumstances.
The most limiting factor in my opinion will be stock levels. As you noted the voucher isn't valid for very long. If you're only after a certain kit and it happens to be out of stock throughout October, that's going to be a far more significant consideration than anything else. Still, that's a problem that relies on you wanting only a handful of specific things when the voucher offers a more significant discount than independent stores can offer on a fairly large portion of kits GW sells.
Apple fox wrote: it’s entirely a win for GW, and people are easy to market it as a good thing for them.
The former is obviously the point for GW. You're not wrong about that. The voucher exists to get people to spend more money, and to spend it directly with GW as that will still yield more money than selling the same item through an independent store. It's a pretty transparent marketing move.
GW getting a good sale does not require the customer to enter into a bad deal, though. Unless you didn't want the thing you buy, in which case I have to wonder why you bought it in the first place, this is simply a win win situation. GW gets what they want, you get what you want, everyone walks away happy. In this deal only independent stores are left out. GW and the customer are fine. I may be misunderstanding you here, but I don't get the insistence that the voucher is somehow a way of putting the customer at a disadvantage. No offense if that's not what you meant.
both Disney and Netflix both had lots of old shows as well they could put up.
So it’s both similar, but have taken too different paths. Plenty to watch on both if you are a avid watcher, but for a lot of people it’s going to take a few months for Warhammer TV.
With GW wanting everyone signed up now, it’s good way to sour a bit.
Personally I think best is partial seasons. We haven’t watched anything weekly in like 20 years. But we do tend to like to watch a few episodes of something when we do watch something.
Voucher is never for the customer, they could have given the same money in free months. Doesn’t have to be a bad deal for customers.
I have also seen people put off by it, thinking it’s cheep way to get people onto a bad service. If GW isn’t confident then why give such a big incentive.
I will have a voucher, put my money down to see what they do.
BrianDavion wrote: disney it seems would agree with you Gert. and IMHO their decision bore weight, christmas of 2019 people where talking about the mandalorian but not the witcher
Well they were talking about how awful the armour looked and how bad some of the casting was.
Gert wrote: Yeah let's predict the success of a system that has been out for less than 3 days.
Does there need to be another thread where doomsayers rant about how bad Warhammer + is and call anyone who disagrees with them GW shills?
Yay for excessive forum gatekeeping where said forum is already heavily over moderated with topics shut down
Over moderated? What? Topics only get shut down when they're 5-10 pages past the point where anything of value was being said OR several pages after it had gone full neckbeard.
tneva82 wrote: Voucher is actually worth more than free month. Free month saves me 6 euros. Voucher saves me 12. Sure if you buy no gw stuff whatsoever free month is wortu more. But if you buy no gw stuff whatsoever you would be unlikely to sub for warhammer+ for 1e a year.
But to GW a voucher is worth so much less. Promoting it as anything more than marketing is just free marketing for GW.
There is plenty of people who don’t buy regularly from GW for a number of reasons.
They even make more money by getting a sale though there web store, rather than a store many people in the hobby may prefer to purchase from.
it’s entirely a win for GW, and people are easy to market it as a good thing for them.
... if you'd never buy from GW how likely are you going to be a WH+ subscriber? seriously dude it sounds like you're looking for things to complain about at this time
I am subbed, I buy from FLGs.
Unless you know the future, GW isn’t realising anything new soon I want.
Bit regardless, being aware of marketing tricks and manipulation isn’t some big conspiracy or anti GW.
People should always be aware of business tricks.
As we are all targeted buy it all the time. If you think you are immune, you really are likely not.
That's not really a trick. It's an incentivization meant to ease the burden of entry so that the customer is more likely to experience the product enough to hopefully establish long term investment. Calling it a trick makes it sound more coercive AND mor clever than it actually is.
As far as business tactics go 'we'll give active customers a small pricebreak on our new service to encourage engagement' is both extremely straightforward and mutually beneficial provided the service is offered in good faith.
Apple fox wrote: I think it will succeed no matter how bad it is.
GW really does not need to put that much effort in to keep people paying.
If it does fail, then I would be curious in how GW managed it.
Easily. People seem to think animation and voice work is free, for some reason, as well as the streaming service itself. They could easily dump more money into their little projects than they get back from subs, and they already committed to a dozen or so projects before seeing any money. And that's just the big stuff. Presumably they pay their cast and crews for the battle reports and etc as well.
I haven’t voted as I was most interested in hearing the better educated community’s response and simply will not have time to use such a subscription to justify signing up. I do wonder if the content will have appeal for nsfw adult minded consumers or if it will be aimed at a Saturday morning cartoon level audience. When I was younger, grim darkness meant nsfw and was stepping away from morning cartoons for kids into the gritty unforgiving real world of endless wars for imperial expansion and all that goes with… parody being that this fantasy very much applied to the lived situation as a critically minded gen Xer in the USA in the late 80s and early 90s until today… the depth of parody has worn thin since recent recasting of the empire, and some of the appeal was lost for me as the game and hobby became more commodified as GW went full on latter day corporate capitalist, white knighting its own empire and expansion for profit with legal violence a growing threat. So, for me, this is interesting, the way that warhammer plus is received by dedicated fans of different demographics… This subscription service might be a move further into the sweet cereal of forgetfulness with sweet serials that forget the critical angle that was its value, for me, or it might reclaim the adult swim flavor and depth of sci fi trope, being the clearinghouse for fantasy concept that it originally was.
yukishiro1 wrote: It won't take much to make it break even, GW is known for paying bottom-barrel wages as we all know by now. I wouldn't be surprised if they're paying the animators freelance rather than a salary, and probably at very low per-episode rates. After all, rather than produce their own, they basically just found a bunch of youtubers and threatened them with being shut down if they didn't take the deal. It's not exactly the actions of a company that is prepared to invest lots of money.
Most of the other stuff is stuff they used to do for free anyway, and it's all basically just advertising for their miniatures. So really W+ is just a way to get people to pay GW for the privilege of being advertised to, and every dollar that comes in that way is pretty much profit compared to if they didn't get it. The costs of running the service are probably pretty minimal.
So do I think it's a good thing? Not really. Is it going to make a lot of money? I doubt it. But it might still break even, and even if it doesn't, it's still probably a win for GW. The only way this goes badly is if they actually invest money in it, and there are zero signs that is the case.
This is true for any costs GW can control, but for content that has to live on a streaming platform like this, GW has less ability to pay below-market rates. I wouldn't be surprised if GW can goose the revenues or disguise sideways/negative business as growth due to creative accounting/grouping things as "digital", but I wouldn't be surprised if they take a pretty big bath on this. It depends if they keep it around for awhile.
Oh, it definitely costs a certain amount of money. But I would be surprised if it's significant relative to GW's overall turnover. This isn't a bet the company sort of thing, it's a fairly minor sideline.
jeff white wrote: I haven’t voted as I was most interested in hearing the better educated community’s response and simply will not have time to use such a subscription to justify signing up. I do wonder if the content will have appeal for nsfw adult minded consumers or if it will be aimed at a Saturday morning cartoon level audience. When I was younger, grim darkness meant nsfw and was stepping away from morning cartoons for kids into the gritty unforgiving real world of endless wars for imperial expansion and all that goes with… parody being that this fantasy very much applied to the lived situation as a critically minded gen Xer in the USA in the late 80s and early 90s until today… the depth of parody has worn thin since recent recasting of the empire, and some of the appeal was lost for me as the game and hobby became more commodified as GW went full on latter day corporate capitalist, white knighting its own empire and expansion for profit with legal violence a growing threat. So, for me, this is interesting, the way that warhammer plus is received by dedicated fans of different demographics… This subscription service might be a move further into the sweet cereal of forgetfulness with sweet serials that forget the critical angle that was its value, for me, or it might reclaim the adult swim flavor and depth of sci fi trope, being the clearinghouse for fantasy concept that it originally was.
Being edgier doesn't make it more mature. And 40k's political commentary has always been blunt and surface level at best (tee-hee we named a Ork after margaret thatcher!) but more generally just kind of confused. They often derail their own commentary with attempts to one-up the grimdark. That confused message is how people start thinking the emperor is a good guy, or at least someone to be emulated or admired. The setting itself forgets that this whole dying imperium gakstorm started due to a narcissistic authoritarian being completely incapable of understanding basic human behavoir and reveling a little to hard in nazi-esque eugenics/ethnic cleansing/human exceptionalism/biological experimentation.
Also, What do you mean 'more commodified'? It STARTED as the maximum level of commodified. Warhammer in general and 40k specifically has ALWAYS been about selling you pewter/resin/platic. It was Transformers/He-Man/GI-Joes for edgelord teens and adults.
jeff white wrote: I haven’t voted as I was most interested in hearing the better educated community’s response and simply will not have time to use such a subscription to justify signing up. I do wonder if the content will have appeal for nsfw adult minded consumers or if it will be aimed at a Saturday morning cartoon level audience. When I was younger, grim darkness meant nsfw and was stepping away from morning cartoons for kids into the gritty unforgiving real world of endless wars for imperial expansion and all that goes with… parody being that this fantasy very much applied to the lived situation as a critically minded gen Xer in the USA in the late 80s and early 90s until today… the depth of parody has worn thin since recent recasting of the empire, and some of the appeal was lost for me as the game and hobby became more commodified as GW went full on latter day corporate capitalist, white knighting its own empire and expansion for profit with legal violence a growing threat. So, for me, this is interesting, the way that warhammer plus is received by dedicated fans of different demographics… This subscription service might be a move further into the sweet cereal of forgetfulness with sweet serials that forget the critical angle that was its value, for me, or it might reclaim the adult swim flavor and depth of sci fi trope, being the clearinghouse for fantasy concept that it originally was.
Have you ever seen Heavy Metal, the original movie?
All three episodes of H&B really remind my of HM. No nudity, but plenty of violence. Both of the episodes on the site were pretty grimdark.
Angels of Death is going for Sin City.
Interesting enough, no AoD this week, but no new HB.
I expect it'll do well. The voucher plus the choice of model - both of which look decent - means it's a lot less risky than it first seems. The "GW killed my dad and shagged my mum" crowd are acting like this is *just* the media content when it's not.
Personally speaking I don't see anything - yet - that's worth my money. But if they start putting out content on a par with Astartes I'd throw money at them...
I am subbed, I buy from FLGs.
Unless you know the future, GW isn’t realising anything new soon I want.
Bit regardless, being aware of marketing tricks and manipulation isn’t some big conspiracy or anti GW.
People should always be aware of business tricks.
As we are all targeted buy it all the time. If you think you are immune, you really are likely not.
That's not really a trick. It's an incentivization meant to ease the burden of entry so that the customer is more likely to experience the product enough to hopefully establish long term investment. Calling it a trick makes it sound more coercive AND mor clever than it actually is.
As far as business tactics go 'we'll give active customers a small pricebreak on our new service to encourage engagement' is both extremely straightforward and mutually beneficial provided the service is offered in good faith.
It seems like a nice thing they're doing for people who were already likely to subscribe.
If someone is a regular purchaser from the GW website, my guess is they'd fall in the group of people interested in WH+.
If someone doesn't purchase from the GW website, they already know how much less expensive the models are elsewhere and a small voucher won't move the needle.
jeff white wrote: I haven’t voted as I was most interested in hearing the better educated community’s response and simply will not have time to use such a subscription to justify signing up. I do wonder if the content will have appeal for nsfw adult minded consumers or if it will be aimed at a Saturday morning cartoon level audience. When I was younger, grim darkness meant nsfw and was stepping away from morning cartoons for kids into the gritty unforgiving real world of endless wars for imperial expansion and all that goes with… parody being that this fantasy very much applied to the lived situation as a critically minded gen Xer in the USA in the late 80s and early 90s until today… the depth of parody has worn thin since recent recasting of the empire, and some of the appeal was lost for me as the game and hobby became more commodified as GW went full on latter day corporate capitalist, white knighting its own empire and expansion for profit with legal violence a growing threat. So, for me, this is interesting, the way that warhammer plus is received by dedicated fans of different demographics… This subscription service might be a move further into the sweet cereal of forgetfulness with sweet serials that forget the critical angle that was its value, for me, or it might reclaim the adult swim flavor and depth of sci fi trope, being the clearinghouse for fantasy concept that it originally was.
Being edgier doesn't make it more mature.
This. The WH+ animated content so far has a 15+ age warning, and I'd say it falls squarely halfway between Saturday morning cartoons and Event Horizon.
But you don't need to go full Sam Neill vivisecting people in space to convey existential terror. Regarding a Hammer & Bolter episode:
Spoiler:
It portrays a Daemonic incursion and what that means for regular Imperial citizens. Spoiler: those citizens do not have a good time either before, or after, the daemons show up.
The same episode is also a fantastic old-school portrayal of how the Imperium works and why it's not something to aspire to.
Before subscribing I was most looking forward to Angels of Death, but it was the stories told in Hammer & Bolter that impressed me more.
jeff white wrote: I haven’t voted as I was most interested in hearing the better educated community’s response and simply will not have time to use such a subscription to justify signing up. I do wonder if the content will have appeal for nsfw adult minded consumers or if it will be aimed at a Saturday morning cartoon level audience. When I was younger, grim darkness meant nsfw and was stepping away from morning cartoons for kids into the gritty unforgiving real world of endless wars for imperial expansion and all that goes with… parody being that this fantasy very much applied to the lived situation as a critically minded gen Xer in the USA in the late 80s and early 90s until today… the depth of parody has worn thin since recent recasting of the empire, and some of the appeal was lost for me as the game and hobby became more commodified as GW went full on latter day corporate capitalist, white knighting its own empire and expansion for profit with legal violence a growing threat. So, for me, this is interesting, the way that warhammer plus is received by dedicated fans of different demographics… This subscription service might be a move further into the sweet cereal of forgetfulness with sweet serials that forget the critical angle that was its value, for me, or it might reclaim the adult swim flavor and depth of sci fi trope, being the clearinghouse for fantasy concept that it originally was.
I mean if you're expecting LITERAL Bolter Porn, I think you can expect to be dissappointed
jeff white wrote: I haven’t voted as I was most interested in hearing the better educated community’s response and simply will not have time to use such a subscription to justify signing up.
Spoiler:
I do wonder if the content will have appeal for nsfw adult minded consumers or if it will be aimed at a Saturday morning cartoon level audience. When I was younger, grim darkness meant nsfw and was stepping away from morning cartoons for kids into the gritty unforgiving real world of endless wars for imperial expansion and all that goes with… parody being that this fantasy very much applied to the lived situation as a critically minded gen Xer in the USA in the late 80s and early 90s until today… the depth of parody has worn thin since recent recasting of the empire, and some of the appeal was lost for me as the game and hobby became more commodified as GW went full on latter day corporate capitalist, white knighting its own empire and expansion for profit with legal violence a growing threat. So, for me, this is interesting, the way that warhammer plus is received by dedicated fans of different demographics… This subscription service might be a move further into the sweet cereal of forgetfulness with sweet serials that forget the critical angle that was its value, for me, or it might reclaim the adult swim flavor and depth of sci fi trope, being the clearinghouse for fantasy concept that it originally was.
Have you ever seen Heavy Metal, the original movie?
All three episodes of H&B really remind my of HM. No nudity, but plenty of violence. Both of the episodes on the site were pretty grimdark.
Angels of Death is going for Sin City.
Interesting enough, no AoD this week, but no new HB.
Thanks for these descriptions. Yes, of course, Heavy Metal was there when I grew into the scene. Sin City is an old fav. I was interested in what WH+ would imply as a window on marketing and future intentions for the game and hobby. Of course, there is room for all ages... with the name "Warhammer Plus" though it sounds a lot like Disney Plus which is for kids, and maybe families who live in front of a TV. So, I was curious, and am grateful for the insights.
I was most interested in hearing the better educated community’s response and simply will not have time to use such a subscription to justify signing up.
Spoiler:
I do wonder if the content will have appeal for nsfw adult minded consumers or if it will be aimed at a Saturday morning cartoon level audience. When I was younger, grim darkness meant nsfw and was stepping away from morning cartoons for kids into the gritty unforgiving real world of endless wars for imperial expansion and all that goes with… parody being that this fantasy very much applied to the lived situation as a critically minded gen Xer in the USA in the late 80s and early 90s until today… the depth of parody has worn thin since recent recasting of the empire, and some of the appeal was lost for me as the game and hobby became more commodified as GW went full on latter day corporate capitalist, white knighting its own empire and expansion for profit with legal violence a growing threat. So, for me, this is interesting, the way that warhammer plus is received by dedicated fans of different demographics… This subscription service might be a move further into the sweet cereal of forgetfulness with sweet serials that forget the critical angle that was its value, for me, or it might reclaim the adult swim flavor and depth of sci fi trope, being the clearinghouse for fantasy concept that it originally was.
Being edgier doesn't make it more mature.
This. The WH+ animated content so far has a 15+ age warning, and I'd say it falls squarely halfway between Saturday morning cartoons and Event Horizon.
But you don't need to go full Sam Neill vivisecting people in space to convey existential terror. Regarding a Hammer & Bolter episode:
Spoiler:
It portrays a Daemonic incursion and what that means for regular Imperial citizens. Spoiler: those citizens do not have a good time either before, or after, the daemons show up.
The same episode is also a fantastic old-school portrayal of how the Imperium works and why it's not something to aspire to.
Before subscribing I was most looking forward to Angels of Death, but it was the stories told in Hammer & Bolter that impressed me more.
Thanks for the insights and (spoilered) review. Nobody said anything about "mature". As specified above, I was interested in hearing about the content as an indication of GW's demographic target for the game and hobby through this medium.
Well, if the future installments and additions to content match to the reviews of some respected voices here, and with the subscription bonuses including coupons for purchases and so on, then after we get into a permanent home with a projector and a place to hang my chip (crisp) bowl, this might be a squig dinner after all...
I started reading 2000AD when I was 8 or 9 and got into Warhammer when I was 11. I think it's easy to underestimate kids and think they won't be able to deal with stuff but I understood what the Imperium represented and that Judge Dredd wasn't the good guy from that age, and I don't think seeing a bit of violence did me any real harm.
Not sure how it couldn't be a win in its current format. The model you get for the year subscription would cover the cost of the sub. The shows so far are excellent and while there obviously isn't an extensive library yet as long as they regularly add to it and include a model every year I'm not sure how you aren't getting a $60 value.
Asmodios wrote: Not sure how it couldn't be a win in its current format. The model you get for the year subscription would cover the cost of the sub. The shows so far are excellent and while there obviously isn't an extensive library yet as long as they regularly add to it and include a model every year I'm not sure how you aren't getting a $60 value.
I think a lot of it comes down to how much you value the non-animated show content. GW may retail their character models at £25+ but if you don't think that's what they're worth the value proposition isn't the same. Also, if you don't actually need that model it's not exactly brilliant value. Maybe if they also build up a library of exclusive models as annual sub rewards that would eventually be great value for most people but I don't think they've even confirmed the exclusive model is going to be a thing after year 1, unless I missed something.
Asmodios wrote: Not sure how it couldn't be a win in its current format. The model you get for the year subscription would cover the cost of the sub. The shows so far are excellent and while there obviously isn't an extensive library yet as long as they regularly add to it and include a model every year I'm not sure how you aren't getting a $60 value.
I think a lot of it comes down to how much you value the non-animated show content. GW may retail their character models at £25+ but if you don't think that's what they're worth the value proposition isn't the same. Also, if you don't actually need that model it's not exactly brilliant value. Maybe if they also build up a library of exclusive models as annual sub rewards that would eventually be great value for most people but I don't think they've even confirmed the exclusive model is going to be a thing after year 1, unless I missed something.
Bringo!
If someone doesn't actually want a Vindicare or Sigmork, the value is $0.
Asmodios wrote: Not sure how it couldn't be a win in its current format. The model you get for the year subscription would cover the cost of the sub. The shows so far are excellent and while there obviously isn't an extensive library yet as long as they regularly add to it and include a model every year I'm not sure how you aren't getting a $60 value.
I think a lot of it comes down to how much you value the non-animated show content. GW may retail their character models at £25+ but if you don't think that's what they're worth the value proposition isn't the same. Also, if you don't actually need that model it's not exactly brilliant value. Maybe if they also build up a library of exclusive models as annual sub rewards that would eventually be great value for most people but I don't think they've even confirmed the exclusive model is going to be a thing after year 1, unless I missed something.
Bringo!
If someone doesn't actually want a Vindicare or Sigmork, the value is $0.
How would the value be zero even if you didn't want them? You still have a physical model you can sell even if discount priced. Then you have access to the app, shows, battle reports, and painting tutorials..... I find it disingenuous to say the value of all of those is $0 much less than $60. the run time of the shows even at the first week of launch well exceeds the run time of a movie you would have to pay to see and id say the quality is better than 95% of what Hollywood puts out. Obviously, if you don't see the value then don't get it but based on what you receive (even just at launch) it's easy to see how it's worth $60 to most people. When they first announced I thought it would be their typical overpriced product but for once they actually delivered something that is easily worth the price.
Me? I’m happy with it - but I’m still getting as much benefit from it as others, because the “older” 40k books in the Vault I already own, and have of course read. The only real benefits to me of having online access to them?
1. I can read them in the pub, on my iPad. Without anyone knowing what I’m actually reading.
2. I can read them without having to disturb the Star Wars figures which stand in front of them on my bookshelf.
But for someone who hasn’t read them? They can extract a level of value I don’t receive.
To me. It’s £50 a year. That’s a little more than a night in the pub, or two particularly lavish takeaways. To others? Too steep. They may simply not be able to spare that once a year - which means they’re going to be paying more than I. It’s not for you or I to tell anyone how deep or shallow their pockets should be.
How would the value be zero even if you didn't want them? You still have a physical model you can sell even if discount priced. Then you have access to the app, shows, battle reports, and painting tutorials..... I find it disingenuous to say the value of all of those is $0 much less than $60.
If someone does not want/need something, then that thing does not have value to them. This is not a controversial statement, nor is it disingenuous - value is subjective.
In the case of selling the model, people may not want or need the money, or they may not think it offsets enough of the cost of the service to warrant consideration. Just two examples off the top of my head.
Also have to consider the opportunity cost of the time spent using Warhammer+ compared to the time someone could spend doing something else. If someone wants to spend time doing something besides watching the shows on Warhammer+ (for whatever reason), then those shows also do not have value for them.
None of this is intended as an indictment on anyone who does think Warhammer+ is worth their time and/or money by the way.
Asmodios 800581 11209433 wrote:
How would the value be zero even if you didn't want them? You still have a physical model you can sell even if discount priced. Then you have access to the app, shows, battle reports, and painting tutorials..... I find it disingenuous to say the value of all of those is $0 much less than $60. the run time of the shows even at the first week of launch well exceeds the run time of a movie you would have to pay to see and id say the quality is better than 95% of what Hollywood puts out. Obviously, if you don't see the value then don't get it but based on what you receive (even just at launch) it's easy to see how it's worth $60 to most people. When they first announced I thought it would be their typical overpriced product but for once they actually delivered something that is easily worth the price.
Easy. The moment people get it the model is going to be for sell cheaper from recasters. The w40k app is, as of right now, not very good. I can't even get to run on it properly on my phone. I can watch battle reports for free on YT, and I don't have infinite time to watch them anyway, so there is more to watch, then what I can watch right now. And finaly my army is already painted, I don't need a tutorial for painting. So for me the value would come from maybe reading the old WD, but to be honest in the time relegated tor reading I would rather read a book. With something like D+, you get access to movies you want to watch, which you know are good and more then one person per family is going to want to watch them.
On top of that all the movies GW puts on their web site can be watched for free, a few days later. So while I can imagine some people may think the Warhammer+ thing is good, it is not for me. And it won't be up until GW starts puting rules that are only going to be accesible if you have their app or if they somehow make using the app obligatory to pay. Then buying the subscription is going to make sense.
How would the value be zero even if you didn't want them? You still have a physical model you can sell even if discount priced. Then you have access to the app, shows, battle reports, and painting tutorials..... I find it disingenuous to say the value of all of those is $0 much less than $60.
If someone does not want/need something, then that thing does not have value to them. This is not a controversial statement, nor is it disingenuous - value is subjective.
In the case of selling the model, people may not want or need the money, or they may not think it offsets enough of the cost of the service to warrant consideration. Just two examples off the top of my head.
Also have to consider the opportunity cost of the time spent using Warhammer+ compared to the time someone could spend doing something else. If someone wants to spend time doing something besides watching the shows on Warhammer+ (for whatever reason), then those shows also do not have value for them.
None of this is intended as an indictment on anyone who does think Warhammer+ is worth their time and/or money by the way.
I mean that is literally a controversial statement.... If I do not want a 75 inch TV but someone drops it off at my door it isn't without value. It might not be the $1000 it retails for but it certainly has a value on the market. This goes for every model GW sells. I might not like DE but if someone drops the starter box on my doorstep it still has value. It might not have as much value to me but it isn't $0. This goes for the 2 models GW is offering they will have a standard market price as soon as they ship and people begin to sell them.
Asmodios 800581 11209433 wrote:
How would the value be zero even if you didn't want them? You still have a physical model you can sell even if discount priced. Then you have access to the app, shows, battle reports, and painting tutorials..... I find it disingenuous to say the value of all of those is $0 much less than $60. the run time of the shows even at the first week of launch well exceeds the run time of a movie you would have to pay to see and id say the quality is better than 95% of what Hollywood puts out. Obviously, if you don't see the value then don't get it but based on what you receive (even just at launch) it's easy to see how it's worth $60 to most people. When they first announced I thought it would be their typical overpriced product but for once they actually delivered something that is easily worth the price.
Easy. The moment people get it the model is going to be for sell cheaper from recasters. The w40k app is, as of right now, not very good. I can't even get to run on it properly on my phone. I can watch battle reports for free on YT, and I don't have infinite time to watch them anyway, so there is more to watch, then what I can watch right now. And finaly my army is already painted, I don't need a tutorial for painting. So for me the value would come from maybe reading the old WD, but to be honest in the time relegated tor reading I would rather read a book. With something like D+, you get access to movies you want to watch, which you know are good and more then one person per family is going to want to watch them.
On top of that all the movies GW puts on their web site can be watched for free, a few days later. So while I can imagine some people may think the Warhammer+ thing is good, it is not for me. And it won't be up until GW starts puting rules that are only going to be accesible if you have their app or if they somehow make using the app obligatory to pay. Then buying the subscription is going to make sense.
"The moment people get it the model is going to be for sell cheaper from recasters" is the only part i bothered to read because you proved my point. "cheaper from recasters" still means it has a value that is greater then $0.
No, it means that people are going to be buying it from them instead of me. I would have to sell the model at the recaster price or lower, meaning I am actually losing money, because if you do not know, a recast character does not cost more then the subscription.
Ah and lets not forget that, I would have to find someone locally who wants to buy the model from me. If not, then I don't have a pay pal or credit card, so ebaying it is out of question, but even if it was doable, it now involves me paying for postal. And knowing my local post, it is a hit or miss game with sending anything insured from here.
I mean that is literally a controversial statement.... If I do not want a 75 inch TV but someone drops it off at my door it isn't without value.
I can give you a life example of such a situation. My uncle got a TV and playstation, when I was a kid and he was a late teen, while he worked in the US.He told my aunt, he got it for free. All he had to pay was transport to Poland, which he did. Imagine his suprise to find out that electricity in the US is different, then in europe, and him not being able to hook either of the things on, without blowing them up. And he couldn't sell it to anyone else in the country either. So very much something that is free or almost free, which you can't use or don't want to use, can have a worth of zero. It can even have a negative value. The same uncle bought a car in the US, waited 6 months for it to be shiped. Then it broke, and he found out that his cool car from the 70s has the closest place with parts and the knowladge to repair it in UK. It didn't matter that the car was very cheap, what matters is that 9 years later it still stand in my aunt garage taking up space.
I mean that is literally a controversial statement.... If I do not want a 75 inch TV but someone drops it off at my door it isn't without value. It might not be the $1000 it retails for but it certainly has a value on the market. This goes for every model GW sells. I might not like DE but if someone drops the starter box on my doorstep it still has value. It might not have as much value to me but it isn't $0. This goes for the 2 models GW is offering they will have a standard market price as soon as they ship and people begin to sell them.
This is going nowhere, so just a friendly bit of advice: try to understand how different people can see different (or no) value in the same thing. You can't fight someone into valuing something the same way you do.
Da Boss wrote: I started reading 2000AD when I was 8 or 9 and got into Warhammer when I was 11. I think it's easy to underestimate kids and think they won't be able to deal with stuff but I understood what the Imperium represented and that Judge Dredd wasn't the good guy from that age, and I don't think seeing a bit of violence did me any real harm.
*Thinking back to watching Alien/s at 11, and The Guyver and Resevior Dogs not long after that. . .
Karol wrote: No, it means that people are going to be buying it from them instead of me. I would have to sell the model at the recaster price or lower, meaning I am actually losing money, because if you do not know, a recast character does not cost more then the subscription.
Ah and lets not forget that, I would have to find someone locally who wants to buy the model from me. If not, then I don't have a pay pal or credit card, so ebaying it is out of question, but even if it was doable, it now involves me paying for postal. And knowing my local post, it is a hit or miss game with sending anything insured from here.
I mean that is literally a controversial statement.... If I do not want a 75 inch TV but someone drops it off at my door it isn't without value.
I can give you a life example of such a situation. My uncle got a TV and playstation, when I was a kid and he was a late teen, while he worked in the US.He told my aunt, he got it for free. All he had to pay was transport to Poland, which he did. Imagine his suprise to find out that electricity in the US is different, then in europe, and him not being able to hook either of the things on, without blowing them up. And he couldn't sell it to anyone else in the country either. So very much something that is free or almost free, which you can't use or don't want to use, can have a worth of zero. It can even have a negative value. The same uncle bought a car in the US, waited 6 months for it to be shiped. Then it broke, and he found out that his cool car from the 70s has the closest place with parts and the knowladge to repair it in UK. It didn't matter that the car was very cheap, what matters is that 9 years later it still stand in my aunt garage taking up space.
But the model has a tangible value. The model's value is not zero(which was the original claim). Read my original post I said people will have their own definition of value and will or will not purchase the product but the value of the physical model is not zero. The original claim was that if someone doesnt want the model the models value is $0..... this simply isnt true because we know that the market rate for the model will be above $0. You obviously believe this to be true because you wouldnt take the time to recast something valued at $0
But the model has a tangible value. The model's value is not zero(which was the original claim). Read my original post I said people will have their own definition of value and will or will not purchase the product but the value of the physical model is not zero. The original claim was that if someone doesnt want the model the models value is $0..... this simply isnt true because we know that the market rate for the model will be above $0. You obviously believe this to be true because you wouldnt take the time to recast something valued at $0
OK, maybe I get it now.
Did my post come off like I'm saying that someone not wanting the model means the model has no price on the open market?
If someone doesn't want the model (for any combination of reasons), then the value of that model to them is $0. Make sense?
I mean that is literally a controversial statement.... If I do not want a 75 inch TV but someone drops it off at my door it isn't without value. It might not be the $1000 it retails for but it certainly has a value on the market. This goes for every model GW sells. I might not like DE but if someone drops the starter box on my doorstep it still has value. It might not have as much value to me but it isn't $0. This goes for the 2 models GW is offering they will have a standard market price as soon as they ship and people begin to sell them.
This is going nowhere, so just a friendly bit of advice: try to understand how different people can see different (or no) value in the same thing. You can't fight someone into valuing something the same way you do.
I said in my original post that it will be worth different amounts to different people..... But the model isn't worth $0. That's simply just an untrue statement. Even if your perceived value is $0 this item will carry a price higher than $0 on the open market meaning that its value is not $0. In my post, you quoted I mentioned perceived value compared to market value. The truth of is that the value of the vindicator or ork isn't $0 no matter how you value it because there is currently a market for the item
But the model has a tangible value. The model's value is not zero(which was the original claim). Read my original post I said people will have their own definition of value and will or will not purchase the product but the value of the physical model is not zero. The original claim was that if someone doesnt want the model the models value is $0..... this simply isnt true because we know that the market rate for the model will be above $0. You obviously believe this to be true because you wouldnt take the time to recast something valued at $0
OK, maybe I get it now.
Did my post come off like I'm saying that someone not wanting the model means the model has no price on the open market?
If someone doesn't want the model (for any combination of reasons), then the value of that model to them is $0. Make sense?
Yes, it makes perfect sense... Thats why this statement will be disputed.
But the model has a tangible value. The model's value is not zero(which was the original claim). Read my original post I said people will have their own definition of value and will or will not purchase the product but the value of the physical model is not zero. The original claim was that if someone doesnt want the model the models value is $0..... this simply isnt true because we know that the market rate for the model will be above $0. You obviously believe this to be true because you wouldnt take the time to recast something valued at $0
If it can't be used and it can't be sold, and trying to sell it to some place else is impossible or costs too much, then the value of the thing is zero. Just because my mom has a box of anti tuberculosis medicin in he drawer, and somewhere in the world there is someone with money, but without medicin, does not suddenly rise the value of the medicin.
Value is only created when two people interact. Just having something does not mean it has any value. If you are in a forest and suddenly a sow with boarlings charges at you, then all the money, phones etc you have in your pocket are worth exactly zero at that very moment. Which in real life we see applied by GW by them using a very intersting rate of british pound exchange rate.
But the model has a tangible value. The model's value is not zero(which was the original claim). Read my original post I said people will have their own definition of value and will or will not purchase the product but the value of the physical model is not zero. The original claim was that if someone doesnt want the model the models value is $0..... this simply isnt true because we know that the market rate for the model will be above $0. You obviously believe this to be true because you wouldnt take the time to recast something valued at $0
If it can't be used and it can't be sold, and trying to sell it to some place else is impossible or costs too much, then the value of the thing is zero. Just because my mom has a box of anti tuberculosis medicin in he drawer, and somewhere in the world there is someone with money, but without medicin, does not suddenly rise the value of the medicin.
Value is only created when two people interact. Just having something does not mean it has any value. If you are in a forest and suddenly a sow with boarlings charges at you, then all the money, phones etc you have in your pocket are worth exactly zero at that very moment. Which in real life we see applied by GW by them using a very intersting rate of british pound exchange rate.
So your holding that this model in our current society will be worth $0 on release? I mean are we all in a forest being attacked by animals currently? or are we sitting behind computers posting on the internet about a company that regularly sells characters for $30-$60. A company that's characters are worth enough money to as you stated before break the law counterfeiting. So you are arguing that some guy in china can't wait to rip off a model with a market value of $0. I'll have to call up Disney and let them know that all the movies they sell in stores are actually worth $0 because someone put them on the internet for free and i don't want a copy of starwars.... they are gonna be really pissed when i break the news to them. Ill also make sure to put a note in my phone to message all the sellers of these models in the future that they actually have a value of $0
But the model has a tangible value. The model's value is not zero(which was the original claim). Read my original post I said people will have their own definition of value and will or will not purchase the product but the value of the physical model is not zero. The original claim was that if someone doesnt want the model the models value is $0..... this simply isnt true because we know that the market rate for the model will be above $0. You obviously believe this to be true because you wouldnt take the time to recast something valued at $0
OK, maybe I get it now.
Did my post come off like I'm saying that someone not wanting the model means the model has no price on the open market?
If someone doesn't want the model (for any combination of reasons), then the value of that model to them is $0. Make sense?
Yes, it makes perfect sense... Thats why this statement will be disputed.
But the model has a tangible value. The model's value is not zero(which was the original claim). Read my original post I said people will have their own definition of value and will or will not purchase the product but the value of the physical model is not zero. The original claim was that if someone doesnt want the model the models value is $0..... this simply isnt true because we know that the market rate for the model will be above $0. You obviously believe this to be true because you wouldnt take the time to recast something valued at $0
OK, maybe I get it now.
Did my post come off like I'm saying that someone not wanting the model means the model has no price on the open market?
If someone doesn't want the model (for any combination of reasons), then the value of that model to them is $0. Make sense?
Yes, it makes perfect sense... Thats why this statement will be disputed.
Looks like you were right!
I never argued this post you made. Yes, your perceived value of an item can be $0. I responded and am still arguing about the original claim which was that if you didn't want a model then the model is worth $0... which you seem to recognize is not true.
So your holding that this model in our current society will be worth $0 on release? I mean are we all in a forest being attacked by animals currently? or are we sitting behind computers posting on the internet about a company that regularly sells characters for $30-$60. A company that's characters are worth enough money to as you stated before break the law counterfeiting. So you are arguing that some guy in china can't wait to rip off a model with a market value of $0. I'll have to call up Disney and let them know that all the movies they sell in stores are actually worth $0 because someone put them on the internet for free and i don't want a copy of starwars.... they are gonna be really pissed when i break the news to them. Ill also make sure to put a note in my phone to message all the sellers of these models in the future that they actually have a value of $0
If you ever find yourself saying "So what you're saying is..." followed by the most bonkers ridiculous thing you can come up with, the answer is always No, that is not what they are saying.
I never argued this post you made. Yes, your perceived value of an item can be $0. I responded and am still arguing about the original claim which was that if you didn't want a model then the model is worth $0... which you seem to recognize is not true.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but you're arguing about something that no one is saying. I am the person who made that post and I've already told you that it was not meant to imply that there is no market value for an item just because one person doesn't want it. The other people you're arguing with are saying the same thing as me.
I would say, as a limited Edition Model from GW, that would usually cost 50€, its normal selling price would 100€
given that a season of any show costs 40€ on release as BR, the total amount of money you get from GW is 300€
so with a subscription of 55€, you save in 245€
so it is totally worth it
on the other hand, if I just want the stuff that was previously free or costed 10€
I have to pay 45€ extra
so paying more but actually getting less as the digital army books are no more because of that
this is not worth the price
So your holding that this model in our current society will be worth $0 on release? I mean are we all in a forest being attacked by animals currently? or are we sitting behind computers posting on the internet about a company that regularly sells characters for $30-$60. A company that's characters are worth enough money to as you stated before break the law counterfeiting. So you are arguing that some guy in china can't wait to rip off a model with a market value of $0. I'll have to call up Disney and let them know that all the movies they sell in stores are actually worth $0 because someone put them on the internet for free and i don't want a copy of starwars.... they are gonna be really pissed when i break the news to them. Ill also make sure to put a note in my phone to message all the sellers of these models in the future that they actually have a value of $0
If you ever find yourself saying "So what you're saying is..." followed by the most bonkers ridiculous thing you can come up with, the answer is always No, that is not what they are saying.
I never argued this post you made. Yes, your perceived value of an item can be $0. I responded and am still arguing about the original claim which was that if you didn't want a model then the model is worth $0... which you seem to recognize is not true.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but you're arguing about something that no one is saying. I am the person who made that post and I've already told you that it was not meant to imply that there is no market value for an item just because one person doesn't want it. The other people you're arguing with are saying the same thing as me.
No that is literally what you wrote. You then posted you didn't mean that so i stopped replying when you admitted that what you wrote was wrong (even if it wasnt what you intended). This other poster is now currently arguing your original post
No that is literally what you wrote. You then posted you didn't mean that so i stopped replying when you admitted that what you wrote was wrong (even if it wasnt what you intended). This other poster is now currently arguing your original post
My original post was not wrong, just want to be clear on that.
I wanted to be polite and offer clarification, because you were arguing over what you thought I said.
People are saying that something can have a value of $0 to an individual for a wide variety of reasons. That's all they've ever been saying. Go back and read the posts - it's right there in black and white.
Now I have to ask, because at this point it seems like you are deliberately misinterpreting what people are saying: are you actually arguing because people aren't agreeing that whatever comes with Warhammer+ is enough to justify the purchase for them?
Ok.. so my dakka membership was more than worth it. I would be getting into WH plus for the connection with the hobby, the sense of community that comes with being in the know about current events in the hobby. Right now dakka does that for me well enough, isolated as I am here. But in future I think that this is something that would hold value enough for me. I might be sending the model to Phandaal though…
No that is literally what you wrote. You then posted you didn't mean that so i stopped replying when you admitted that what you wrote was wrong (even if it wasnt what you intended). This other poster is now currently arguing your original post
My original post was not wrong, just want to be clear on that.
I wanted to be polite and offer clarification, because you were arguing over what you thought I said.
People are saying that something can have a value of $0 to an individual for a wide variety of reasons. That's all they've ever been saying. Go back and read the posts - it's right there in black and white.
Now I have to ask, because at this point it seems like you are deliberately misinterpreting what people are saying: are you actually arguing because people aren't agreeing that whatever comes with Warhammer+ is enough to justify the purchase for them?
"If someone doesn't actually want a Vindicare or Sigmork, the value is $0."
As written this post is 100% wrong. Just because someone doesn't want the item its value is not $0. Just because I don't want a Porsche the value of a Porsche is not $0. That is not how value works and it's not what you posted. You later posted what you intended to write but that is not what you wrote. I said in my original post that people's perception of value will decide if they get the item or not. The only argument was about your reply to my post that was a false statement as written.
Asmodios wrote: That is not how value works and it's not what you posted.
this is exactly how value works and the whole western philosophy of the free market is build around it, that the value of something is only based and how much others want it
if no one wants a products, the price will be decreased because the price does not reflect the value it has for the customers
so if you don't want a Porsche, the value of the Porsche is Zero and nothing more, if you would still buy a Porsche for half the price, than its value is half the price
this does not change just because someone else would be double to price to get one because he really wants one
"If someone doesn't actually want a Vindicare or Sigmork, the value is $0."
As written this post is 100% wrong. Just because someone doesn't want the item its value is not $0. Just because I don't want a Porsche the value of a Porsche is not $0. That is not how value works and it's not what you posted. You later posted what you intended to write but that is not what you wrote. I said in my original post that people's perception of value will decide if they get the item or not. The only argument was about your reply to my post that was a false statement as written.
As written, the post was open for you to interpret in the silliest way possible in order to argue about nothing.
By all means, keep saying that thing you think we are all saying and stating how ridiculous it is. We all agree with you - it's a ridiculous thing to say. That's why nobody said it.
Anyway, you know what they say about the biggest fool being the one who follows, so you'll have to keep going on this merry-go-round without me.
Asmodios wrote: That is not how value works and it's not what you posted.
this is exactly how value works and the whole western philosophy of the free market is build around it, that the value of something is only based and how much others want it
if no one wants a products, the price will be decreased because the price does not reflect the value it has for the customers
so if you don't want a Porsche, the value of the Porsche is Zero and nothing more, if you would still buy a Porsche for half the price, than its value is half the price
this does not change just because someone else would be double to price to get one because he really wants one
He's claiming we're saying that the thing has objectively zero value for anyone ever, anywhere, because one person doesn't want it. Yes, it's silly, but if he would actually engage with what people are saying he wouldn't be able to fight about it.
Best to pull the ripcord now.
(Still accepting free Vindicares and Sigmorks, BTW. If all goes according to plan I'll be swimming in valueless plastic before the day is out!)
Asmodios wrote: That is not how value works and it's not what you posted.
this is exactly how value works and the whole western philosophy of the free market is build around it, that the value of something is only based and how much others want it
if no one wants a products, the price will be decreased because the price does not reflect the value it has for the customers
so if you don't want a Porsche, the value of the Porsche is Zero and nothing more, if you would still buy a Porsche for half the price, than its value is half the price
this does not change just because someone else would be double to price to get one because he really wants one
You just contradicted yourself in your post
"if no one wants a products, the price will be decreased"
"so if you don't want a Porsche, the value of the Porsche is Zero and nothing more"
Your first statement openly acknowledges a marketplace. If nobody in a marketplace wants the item then the item is $0 not if I don't want an item. Me wanting or not wanting a Porsche does not change its value to $0. Its value is based on the market not simply my perceived value. The entire western philosophy is not based on an individuals percieved value but that of a marketplace.
"If someone doesn't actually want a Vindicare or Sigmork, the value is $0."
As written this post is 100% wrong. Just because someone doesn't want the item its value is not $0. Just because I don't want a Porsche the value of a Porsche is not $0. That is not how value works and it's not what you posted. You later posted what you intended to write but that is not what you wrote. I said in my original post that people's perception of value will decide if they get the item or not. The only argument was about your reply to my post that was a false statement as written.
As written, the post was open for you to interpret in the silliest way possible in order to argue about nothing.
By all means, keep saying that thing you think we are all saying and stating how ridiculous it is. We all agree with you - it's a ridiculous thing to say. That's why nobody said it.
Anyway, you know what they say about the biggest fool being the one who follows, so you'll have to keep going on this merry-go-round without me.
Asmodios wrote: That is not how value works and it's not what you posted.
this is exactly how value works and the whole western philosophy of the free market is build around it, that the value of something is only based and how much others want it
if no one wants a products, the price will be decreased because the price does not reflect the value it has for the customers
so if you don't want a Porsche, the value of the Porsche is Zero and nothing more, if you would still buy a Porsche for half the price, than its value is half the price
this does not change just because someone else would be double to price to get one because he really wants one
He's claiming we're saying that the thing has objectively zero value for anyone ever, anywhere, because one person doesn't want it. Yes, it's silly, but if he would actually engage with what people are saying he wouldn't be able to fight about it.
Best to pull the ripcord now.
(Still accepting free Vindicares and Sigmorks, BTW. If all goes according to plan I'll be swimming in valueless plastic before the day is out!)
You are saying i interpreted your post in a silly way but then the above poster just argued exactly what you posted as written which means people did take that post literally. Its ok though we now know what you were trying to say and yes your perceived value of the model could be that its worthless and the content on the app is worthless thus its a bad purchase for you. That's fine and ill respectfully disagree that i see a far greater value on the release deal but thats purely subjective
You are saying i interpreted your post in a silly way but then the above poster just argued exactly what you posted as written which means people did take that post literally. Its ok though we now know what you were trying to say and yes your perceived value of the model could be that its worthless and the content on the app is worthless thus its a bad purchase for you. That's fine and ill respectfully disagree that i see a far greater value on the release deal but thats purely subjective
I really genuinely mean it when I say that nobody is saying what you think they are saying, including the guy you replied to. Maybe it seems like I'm trying to one-up you, but I'm not.
Every single person is referring to individual perceived value distinct from a market price. Full stop, that's all folks.
You are saying i interpreted your post in a silly way but then the above poster just argued exactly what you posted as written which means people did take that post literally. Its ok though we now know what you were trying to say and yes your perceived value of the model could be that its worthless and the content on the app is worthless thus its a bad purchase for you. That's fine and ill respectfully disagree that i see a far greater value on the release deal but thats purely subjective
I really genuinely mean it when I say that nobody is saying what you think they are saying, including the guy you replied to. Maybe it seems like I'm trying to one-up you, but I'm not.
Every single person is referring to individual perceived value distinct from a market price. Full stop, that's all folks.
That might be what you and the other poster were attempting to say but you failed to properly convey it. Because it's a written conversation with strangers i have to go off of what a person posts. So when a poster says "if you don't want a Porsche, the value of the Porsche is Zero and nothing more" I have to take him at his word that this is what he's trying to convey. I could assume that he means that if he doesn't want a Porsche then HIS perceived value for that Porsche is $0. But then I'm constantly replying to what I assume people are writing and not what they actually are. This means that I can just as easily as context or meaning that's not supposed to be there... and you know what they say assumptions make
jeff white wrote: I haven’t voted as I was most interested in hearing the better educated community’s response and simply will not have time to use such a subscription to justify signing up. I do wonder if the content will have appeal for nsfw adult minded consumers or if it will be aimed at a Saturday morning cartoon level audience. When I was younger, grim darkness meant nsfw and was stepping away from morning cartoons for kids into the gritty unforgiving real world of endless wars for imperial expansion and all that goes with… parody being that this fantasy very much applied to the lived situation as a critically minded gen Xer in the USA in the late 80s and early 90s until today… the depth of parody has worn thin since recent recasting of the empire, and some of the appeal was lost for me as the game and hobby became more commodified as GW went full on latter day corporate capitalist, white knighting its own empire and expansion for profit with legal violence a growing threat. So, for me, this is interesting, the way that warhammer plus is received by dedicated fans of different demographics… This subscription service might be a move further into the sweet cereal of forgetfulness with sweet serials that forget the critical angle that was its value, for me, or it might reclaim the adult swim flavor and depth of sci fi trope, being the clearinghouse for fantasy concept that it originally was.
The content has not really pulled many punches. Everything has been rated TV-14 / MA15+. The themes are quite adult, there's plenty of violence, and a fair bit of psychic horror and grim dark.
Thanks for getting us back on track Daedalus. Poll numbers remain negative, and I can understand why even if the content is good. After their library accumulates and binge watching weekends becomes a possibility, maybe consensus will shift.
jeff white wrote: Thanks for getting us back on track Daedalus. Poll numbers remain negative, and I can understand why even if the content is good. After their library accumulates and binge watching weekends becomes a possibility, maybe consensus will shift.
Old White Dwarf issues would move the needle for me big time. Stuff from the 90s/early 00s, even stuff from the 80s. Back when they had more of that "hobby in your friend's garage" feel.
I had White Dwarfs stacked in boxes from that era… loved the batreps with little icons and interviews, before and after accounts, both 40k and Fantasy. Gonna need some alone time to remember that far back.
What time does the wednesday refill occur exactly? GW has not stated any specific time of day, only saying "Wednesday"
Today will see Q1/2021 White Dwarf mags getting added to the Vault, I'm surprised they are giving us access to such recent issues.. With this rate, the September issue with the KT2 rules for that new Admech team could be in the Vault pretty soon?!
xttz wrote: The new content was listed around 1pm UK time, but took around 10-15mins before it would play.
Angels of Death Ep2 was pretty cool
Not a ton of content in this week's update, I've watched it all already in about an hour while cooking and doing the dishes... That said, it's all good stuff: bat rep was entertaining (if a bit bite-sized), citadel masterclass is handy as ever and Angels of Death Ep2 was cool.
I mean that is literally a controversial statement.... If I do not want a 75 inch TV but someone drops it off at my door it isn't without value. It might not be the $1000 it retails for but it certainly has a value on the market. This goes for every model GW sells. I might not like DE but if someone drops the starter box on my doorstep it still has value. It might not have as much value to me but it isn't $0. This goes for the 2 models GW is offering they will have a standard market price as soon as they ship and people begin to sell them.
This is going nowhere, so just a friendly bit of advice: try to understand how different people can see different (or no) value in the same thing. You can't fight someone into valuing something the same way you do.
So how is cold hard cash you will get from model 0 value?
If money has zero value then you aren't paying for sub with anything that has value to you ie it's free for you. You pay 0.
I’ve enjoyed it so far, but we’re yet to see a Loremaster video. If you’ve ever visited the 40K Background thread, you’ll know the lore and the discussion of it is as passion of mine.
So naturally, I’ve a strong interest in Loremaster. I hope it’s suitably crunchy, and shines a light on lesser known background and that. The risk is it could be quite dry watching, if they’re just regurgitating the written stuff, and not joining the dots and that.
And GW haven’t had a chance to start incorporating any feedback from those of us watching it.
Plus they need to strike the balance between accessible to newcomers, and deep diving enough to keep more veteran eyes on the screen.
I was willing to give it a try and when I tried to sign up for it (multiple times with different payment methods with different browsers on different days in different wi-fi locations), I kept getting a "nurglings in the system - please try again" error.
jeff white wrote: Will be interested to see if this result shifts over time.
Probably better to re-do the poll from scratch in 6-8 months time once, y'know, W+ actually has some content.
Is that actually going to make a difference? The binge watching crowd will have something to keep them busy for a month, but that won't change anything about update speed and volume.
I'm not seeing an appreciable difference between not enough content and not enough content for more than a month when the question is about long term sustainability of the service.
Well if GW hires animators, and makes them work Japan/Korea style, then the amount of content could be huge in 12-18 months. There could be two whole sesons of Angels of Death.
I think the vinidcare is cool and is worth it for me (I am a collector and have every assassin they have produced so far, so was great for me).
I am totally waiting for the lore channel as well, as Mad Doc said above.
For the Angels animation, in the second episode I found some of the fight scenes a bit jumpy and funny: The destruction of the bounty and she wasn't contacted by the ships that destroyed it (could be xenos infiltrated as well etc), or she didn't try to contact them? Or no other ship in the flotilla moved or contacted her? The chimera rolled up and was there for a bit and didn't have a lock on the marines standing still in the middle of the area and hit the statue? (they cut that scene wrong I think, I think the marine that dodged the blast should have been before the statue got hit and then the captain saved the other marine) etc, etc. Superfluous, was a good watch, but 2 minute intro to a 18minute show... However, I enjoyed it.
Do I think it will be around in a year? Unless they get a s**ttonne of subscribers then it will run at a loss on face value, but the extra marketing and sales from marketing could offset that. For example, in the future, if say the Eldar are the next codex out and they put out a heap of episodes that shows how awesome they are, lots of heroic moments etc, really make you connect or associate with the Eldar plight and then the week after the shows are released, bam Eldar are released, it could drive sales up a lot etc.
Or if sales of xxxx faction are low and they want to move some stock of xxxx faction to make room for future releases, release some episodes on Warhammer TV that focus on that faction etc (bam sales will probably go up).
Gunna copy the rest of my thoughts from another thread about value for me:
So second week of it and my thoughts now:
I still think it is worth the money, its $100 AU per year (I pay almost that much for 1 take-away meal for my family), so I paid it and figure I will just wait a few months for content to build up and binge watch it (as said before, the model and 40k app are almost worth it alone, the video content is bonus).
However, I watched the first 2 of the Blood angel show now and I am enjoying it (will now not watch anymore till have a heap built up, the episodes are to short).
The batreps, pass. Are way better channels for that aspect (Miniwargaming, Tabletop Tactics, Mountain Miniature Gaming, Sticking Scorpion 82 etc).
The white dwarfs etc, meh ye is ok good bonus.
I am really waiting for the Lore channel (I love channels like Luiten09 etc), I can't wait for that.
Conclusion after second week:
I totally think is worth it, I figure paying $100 per year for a model, 40k app, AoS app (when improved/developed) and some extras like some 40k animations and a lore channel, whenever it comes. It's no netflix/Stan/Amazon Prime etc or anything like that, but I didn't expect it to be. So big from me.
For the Angels animation, in the second episode I found some of the fight scenes a bit jumpy and funny: The destruction of the bounty and she wasn't contacted by the ships that destroyed it (could be xenos infiltrated as well etc), or she didn't try to contact them? Or no other ship in the flotilla moved or contacted her? The chimera rolled up and was there for a bit and didn't have a lock on the marines standing still in the middle of the area and hit the statue? (they cut that scene wrong I think, I think the marine that dodged the blast should have been before the statue got hit and then the captain saved the other marine) etc, etc. Superfluous, was a good watch, but 2 minute intro to a 18minute show... However, I enjoyed it.
Spoilering for those who haven't watched.
Spoiler:
I presume the Bounty captain was trying to steer it away and the other infiltrated ships took it out. We'll have to wait and see on that one.
The tank I can only imagine withdrew momentarily or the marines repositioned to be out of it's immediate line of sight. It wouldn't lock on initially, because they wanted to lure them.
I'm a subscriber, will keep it for a year... However I think they need to get their act together quite sharpish if they want this to last longer than a year.
More than 2 battle reports a week, ideally including specialist games (perfect place and resources to do an actual necromunda campaign with multiple gangs).
The animation which was the main draw for many is too thin on the ground and I do not think 1 episode per week is enough. It needs to be at least 2, with those 2 being different shows/series.
It is fun to do a first take with a poll but all that really matters is the bottom line subscription "poll" $$$. I may not care for WH+, but I only buy GW models and paints for use in other games so my opinion does not matter. There are many people on these forums who, for various reasons, are not the target audience for this type of content purchase. Not everyone needs to be my friends. Just because it is not for me does not mean it is not for everyone. I hope WH+ succeeds because I would like to see more companies/games organize their systems through apps supported by optional hard copy and pdf purchases.
That's not what GW is doing via W+. It's not even really close.
If W+ was a fiver (or even a tenner, with the other content) a month for full digital access to every rulebook GW produces I'd be all for it. But that's not what it is, and there's zero indications it is ever going to become that.
This is the company that has actually *discontinued* digital versions of its rules for the new editions of its two flagship games, not expanded them.
You mean the mistake that was resolved and the entire exchange only took 2 days?
Making one claim on ad revenue is not "going after creators", especially when GW contacted MWM and clarified it was a mistake on the companies behalf.
Gert wrote: You mean the mistake that was resolved and the entire exchange only took 2 days? Making one claim on ad revenue is not "going after creators", especially when GW contacted MWM and clarified it was a mistake on the companies behalf.
How much money from ad revenue was lost in those two days when the majority of views for most content on youtube is from a very narrow window?
GW just make mistakes, you know just like every small hobby company does unlike the multimillion corporations that spend thousands on lawyers and know what they are doing
Doesn't absolve GW of criticism...
also doesn't absolve them of their behaviour torwards animators which would fall also under fair use.
Frankly this whole thing with MWM is imo a testing of the waters in regards to how far they are allowed to go with that nonsense.
Indeed. Humans do make mistakes, but that doesn't mean, and certainly doesn't prove, that this wasn't a deliberate and calculated act. I fully accept that it also doesn't mean it was, but the fact remains that it happened, and GW should be critiqued for it.
Gert wrote: You mean the mistake that was resolved and the entire exchange only took 2 days?
Making one claim on ad revenue is not "going after creators", especially when GW contacted MWM and clarified it was a mistake on the companies behalf.
How much money from ad revenue was lost in those two days when the majority of views for most content on youtube is from a very narrow window?
How much money from ad revenue should these youtubers really be able to gain?
Gert wrote: You mean the mistake that was resolved and the entire exchange only took 2 days? Making one claim on ad revenue is not "going after creators", especially when GW contacted MWM and clarified it was a mistake on the companies behalf.
How much money from ad revenue was lost in those two days when the majority of views for most content on youtube is from a very narrow window?
How much money from ad revenue should these youtubers really be able to gain?
I'd ask, does it matter?
A copyright strike on YouTube can often mean any revenue for the video ends up in the pocket of the entity that raised the strike. If you or I had two days worth of wages paid to someone else - especially when they'd caused that to happen, I'm not sure we'd primarily care about the amount involved - we'd be livid simply that it did. At the very least, we'd expect whatever amount was taken was paid back. I have no idea whether MWM can expect that in this situation.
I don't think the amount involved is the most relevant aspect here. Though I'd be casually curious as to what it might be myself in fairness to you.
Gert wrote: You mean the mistake that was resolved and the entire exchange only took 2 days?
Making one claim on ad revenue is not "going after creators", especially when GW contacted MWM and clarified it was a mistake on the companies behalf.
How much money from ad revenue was lost in those two days when the majority of views for most content on youtube is from a very narrow window?
How much money from ad revenue should these youtubers really be able to gain?
For a video that's a review of a product it should be whatever the views dictate. Just because you're reviewing someone else's product, doesn't mean you're not entitled to monetisation. That's one of the reasons reviews are protected by Fair Use.
On the other side of this, it's worth mentioning that YT should have continued to track revenue for the video even while demonetized and should now pay that to the creator since the copyright strike has been removed. Often videos that are demonetized will still have ads running, it's just that YT doesn't pay the creator for them. Not sure if that was the case with this video as I didn't watch it in the 2-day period it was demonetized.
Gert wrote: You mean the mistake that was resolved and the entire exchange only took 2 days?
Making one claim on ad revenue is not "going after creators", especially when GW contacted MWM and clarified it was a mistake on the companies behalf.
How much money from ad revenue was lost in those two days when the majority of views for most content on youtube is from a very narrow window?
Literally zero.
YouTube still monetises the clip, holds the money in trust, and if the claim is withdrawn pays it like they always would have done.
There is so much FUD about how YouTube's copyright systems work.
Gert wrote: You mean the mistake that was resolved and the entire exchange only took 2 days? Making one claim on ad revenue is not "going after creators", especially when GW contacted MWM and clarified it was a mistake on the companies behalf.
How much money from ad revenue was lost in those two days when the majority of views for most content on youtube is from a very narrow window?
Literally zero.
YouTube still monetises the clip, holds the money in trust, and if the claim is withdrawn pays it like they always would have done.
There is so much FUD about how YouTube's copyright systems work.
That is how it works if the monetisation is claimed by a separate entity, not if the video is demonetised completely. Videos only make money during a content ID claim when both parties want it monetised. GW apparently asked for the video to be demonetised, so no money was made while the claim was resolved if that was the case.
Gert wrote: You mean the mistake that was resolved and the entire exchange only took 2 days? Making one claim on ad revenue is not "going after creators", especially when GW contacted MWM and clarified it was a mistake on the companies behalf.
How much money from ad revenue was lost in those two days when the majority of views for most content on youtube is from a very narrow window?
How much money from ad revenue should these youtubers really be able to gain?
However much they are legally entitled to by the contract they enter into with Youtube when they add monetisation to their videos. Why would it be any less?
But they will need to put up far more content if they want to keep my subscription. One animation and a batrep per week plus a painting tutorial is not nearly enough content to justify the price base.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt for the moment as they've only just launched, but they need to amp this up if they are going to charge what they are charging,
Compare this to other streaming sites like Netflix, Shudder, Prime its not currently worth it.
The animations they have put out are fantastic though imo
That is how it works if the monetisation is claimed by a separate entity, not if the video is demonetised completely. Videos only make money during a content ID claim when both parties want it monetised. GW asked for the video to be demonetised, so no money was made while the claim was resolved.
This is the correct distinction, it's a little bit unclear which it actually was, though. Midwinter clarified it was a copyright claim, not a copyright strike, which would normally imply that GW had asked for the revenues to go to them. But he also said it had been demonetized, which would imply the latter, though it could also just have been from his point of view - i.e., he wasn't getting the money - rather than that the video itself was fully demonetized.
But you're absolutely correct that if the video was fully demonetized, he will have lost whatever revenue he would have got during that period permanently, he won't get it back because it was never generated in the first place. So GW would have cost him that money, and if that is the case, he really ought to demand they compensate him for the damage they wrongfully caused.
But they will need to put up far more content if they want to keep my subscription. One animation and a batrep per week plus a painting tutorial is not nearly enough content to justify the price base.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt for the moment as they've only just launched, but they need to amp this up if they are going to charge what they are charging,
Compare this to other streaming sites like Netflix, Shudder, Prime its not currently worth it.
The animations they have put out are fantastic though imo
I have to agree with this. I'm finding myself wishing there was more content added on a weekly basis and I'm actively looking forward to new stuff, but when I can get through every new video in an evening while cooking, eating and doing the dishes, that's really thin.
