odinsgrandson wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Ok- interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Auld Grump

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

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

But I digress...

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

But I digress...

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

Market research only works if you actually listen to it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Talys wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Auld Grump

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then they did it anyway.

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

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

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

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

And they were wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

*EDIT*

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

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

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

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

The Auld Grump

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

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

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

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

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

@TheAuldGrump - via CNET:

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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

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

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

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

 Talys wrote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

This clearly is the thrust of AoS.

 Talys wrote:

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

How do you explain AoS?

 Talys wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Herzlos wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Small wonder that rumour and anecdote declares AoS a disaster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Ain't that the truth.

 Sarouan wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

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

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

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

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

Does that make sense?

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

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

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

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

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

Herzlos wrote:

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

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

Semantic arguments aside, that freedom is the best thing about Age of Sigmar. The ability to pick up almost any box in the entire range (at least one in the same Grand Alliance) is intoxicating and has led to a lot of purchases that otherwise would not have been made... which is great for GW and great for me, because I get to recreate whatever vision I have in my mind on the tabletop without arbitraryrestrictions, and I can still play in tournaments and against my club mates without breaking the status quo. My Chaos army, for example, has Warriors, Beastmen, and Chaos Dwarfs in a haphazard mix, and I will surely add some Skaven units just because I like the look of them, and maybe a demon unit or two if I feel like it. It's awesome.

 Mymearan wrote:

Semantic arguments aside, that freedom is the best thing about Age of Sigmar.

Flashback to all the fans I've seen say 'I play 40K because of the fluff!'

Again, I like games that have freedom and fully-baked rules.

and I can still play in tournaments

Pfft.

But that exact freedom existed within WHFB.

It also exists in loads of other games, though there tends to be some power check on it (in Malifaux, you can hire units from other factions as mercenaries, but you pay 1pt extra for the privilege).

Herzlos wrote:
But that exact freedom existed within WHFB.

It also exists in loads of other games, though there tends to be some power check on it (in Malifaux, you can hire units from other factions as mercenaries, but you pay 1pt extra for the privilege).

I said "without breaking the status quo" so no it didn't actually, just like it doesn't in 40k even though Unbound is in the rulebook. If you mean within the rules, I'm pretty sure you couldn't have an army consisting of one unit from each of 10 different armies in WHFB? Or would that be fine in a tournament or pick-up setting?

and I can still play in tournaments

Pfft.

I suspect the 'pfft' refers to the fact that if you play AOS as written, then it makes a mockery of the aim of any sort of competitive event, which is to establish who does the thing best. Without checks and balances in place to ensure an even contest, then any result is meaningless, and if those checks and balances are added, then you're not playing AOS, you're playing a different game based on its rules.

Plus, while you cite adding one unit from 10 different armies as some sort of positive, or at least appear to, I'd say it completely ruins the integrity of the game. Part of the point of having factions is that they all have different strengths and weaknesses, and the challenge of exploiting the former and minimising the latter is a key part to success. Just creating fluff to justify the inclusion, and therefore sale, of any old gak is clearly a cash grab, and a clumsily implemented one at that (as usual from GW,) and totally removes an important part of any multi faction tabletop game.

 Talys wrote:


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

I think you're probably right in the sense that the designers/studio want this, but you can't really remark on 'GW' being a single entity in this sense.

The problem is as I see :
- Games designer wants to produce a 'game' that introduces an element of competition between players, ergo something made possible by a rule structure/balance.
- Releases go via a sales department which says 'yes' to this bit and 'no' to that bit (such as point values, or something that stops you from collecting each monster/big vehicle kit as it's released in turn). They get the final say and what is and what isn't released.
- Game is turned into a cluster-feth

This is obvious every time you look at a game of 40k or AoS going on, let alone from the comments of several developers who have since left GW or else are talking about the changes within the company that have happened over recent years.

The only way this will change is if marketing (and perhaps this might change with Rowntree) realise that the playing of the game, tournaments and a balanced/fun game mechanic affects sales of their products.

Please, so many factions.... No, its not an excuse, GW simply is run from the accounting and not from the design studio.

And short gain over long growth is how GW works the past decades.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I suspect the 'pfft' refers to the fact that if you play AOS as written, then it makes a mockery of the aim of any sort of competitive event, which is to establish who does the thing best. Without checks and balances in place to ensure an even contest, then any result is meaningless, and if those checks and balances are added, then you're not playing AOS, you're playing a different game based on its rules.

Plus, while you cite adding one unit from 10 different armies as some sort of positive, or at least appear to, I'd say it completely ruins the integrity of the game. Part of the point of having factions is that they all have different strengths and weaknesses, and the challenge of exploiting the former and minimising the latter is a key part to success. Just creating fluff to justify the inclusion, and therefore sale, of any old gak is clearly a cash grab, and a clumsily implemented one at that (as usual from GW,) and totally removes an important part of any multi faction tabletop game.

So what he was doing was indeed being childish and nothing else. Right. I appreciate you elaborating your thoughts instead of acting similarly.

As for your points and my view of them: Both WHFB and 40k have always been extensively comped, so "playing a different game" is par for the course with GW and doesn't actually affect my experience in any way.

As for your second point, where you see a clumsy cash grab, I see the freedom to finally create the sort of army I want to play. So far this has resulted in zero negative experiences.

 Mymearan wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I suspect the 'pfft' refers to the fact that if you play AOS as written, then it makes a mockery of the aim of any sort of competitive event, which is to establish who does the thing best. Without checks and balances in place to ensure an even contest, then any result is meaningless, and if those checks and balances are added, then you're not playing AOS, you're playing a different game based on its rules.

Plus, while you cite adding one unit from 10 different armies as some sort of positive, or at least appear to, I'd say it completely ruins the integrity of the game. Part of the point of having factions is that they all have different strengths and weaknesses, and the challenge of exploiting the former and minimising the latter is a key part to success. Just creating fluff to justify the inclusion, and therefore sale, of any old gak is clearly a cash grab, and a clumsily implemented one at that (as usual from GW,) and totally removes an important part of any multi faction tabletop game.

So what he was doing was indeed being childish and nothing else. Right. I appreciate you elaborating your thoughts instead of acting similarly.

As for your points and my view of them: Both WHFB and 40k have always been extensively comped, so "playing a different game" is par for the course with GW and doesn't actually affect my experience in any way.

As for your second point, where you see a clumsy cash grab, I see the freedom to finally create the sort of army I want to play. So far this has resulted in zero negative experiences.

Who was stopping you before?

 Mymearan wrote:


Semantic arguments aside, that freedom is the best thing about Age of Sigmar. The ability to pick up almost any box in the entire range (at least one in the same Grand Alliance) is intoxicating and has led to a lot of purchases that otherwise would not have been made... which is great for GW and great for me, because I get to recreate whatever vision I have in my mind on the tabletop without arbitraryrestrictions, and I can still play in tournaments and against my club mates without breaking the status quo. My Chaos army, for example, has Warriors, Beastmen, and Chaos Dwarfs in a haphazard mix, and I will surely add some Skaven units just because I like the look of them, and maybe a demon unit or two if I feel like it. It's awesome.

And you needed AoS to do this? You weren't smart enough to just do this anyway with WFB?
Hell... even at the 40k club I run in a school there's a kid who plays with a mix of orks and space marines. He doesn't need GW to destroy the 40k universe and bring out a 4 page 40k rules effort to allow him to do that.

All those people hailing AoS as the game that allows them to play with what they want must have been real short on imagination.

 Mymearan wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I suspect the 'pfft' refers to the fact that if you play AOS as written, then it makes a mockery of the aim of any sort of competitive event, which is to establish who does the thing best. Without checks and balances in place to ensure an even contest, then any result is meaningless, and if those checks and balances are added, then you're not playing AOS, you're playing a different game based on its rules.

Plus, while you cite adding one unit from 10 different armies as some sort of positive, or at least appear to, I'd say it completely ruins the integrity of the game. Part of the point of having factions is that they all have different strengths and weaknesses, and the challenge of exploiting the former and minimising the latter is a key part to success. Just creating fluff to justify the inclusion, and therefore sale, of any old gak is clearly a cash grab, and a clumsily implemented one at that (as usual from GW,) and totally removes an important part of any multi faction tabletop game.

So what he was doing was indeed being childish and nothing else. Right. I appreciate you elaborating your thoughts instead of acting similarly.

I wouldn't say childish, assuming I'm right in my interpretation, I was able to extrapolate that from the comment. Brevity is the soul of wit, and if you are unable or unwilling to do similar, that doesn't necessarily reflect badly on the poster.

As for your points and my view of them: Both WHFB and 40k have always been extensively comped, so "playing a different game" is par for the course with GW and doesn't actually affect my experience in any way.

As for your second point, where you see a clumsy cash grab, I see the freedom to finally create the sort of army I want to play. So far this has resulted in zero negative experiences.

To suggest the community addressing matters of FAQ because GW refuse to is in any way the same magnitude as essentially having to write a substantial portion of the system itself is a little disingenuous. There's a whole world of difference between making a decision on a vague rules interaction or limiting a specific outlier and the work needed to get AOS to a pre-comped standard. Medically speaking it's the gulf between casting a broken bone and doing a multiple organ transplant. Sure, they're on the same curve, but ones a lot more straightforward than the other.

As Joyboozer, and so many before, has said, nothing was stopping you doing anything AOS allows before, but now anyone who didn't want to play with no army building limits and who is made slightly uncomfortable by such a blatant disregard for fluff which was the whole universe's best asset is now up gak creek.

But this isn't an AOS thread, it's a GW financial one, and that paints a picture that those players were certainly common enough to put a dent in GW profits by moving elsewhere as the games have gone down this particular rabbit hole.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:


Semantic arguments aside, that freedom is the best thing about Age of Sigmar. The ability to pick up almost any box in the entire range (at least one in the same Grand Alliance) is intoxicating and has led to a lot of purchases that otherwise would not have been made... which is great for GW and great for me, because I get to recreate whatever vision I have in my mind on the tabletop without arbitraryrestrictions, and I can still play in tournaments and against my club mates without breaking the status quo. My Chaos army, for example, has Warriors, Beastmen, and Chaos Dwarfs in a haphazard mix, and I will surely add some Skaven units just because I like the look of them, and maybe a demon unit or two if I feel like it. It's awesome.

And you needed AoS to do this? You weren't smart enough to just do this anyway with WFB?
Hell... even at the 40k club I run in a school there's a kid who plays with a mix of orks and space marines. He doesn't need GW to destroy the 40k universe and bring out a 4 page 40k rules effort to allow him to do that.

All those people hailing AoS as the game that allows them to play with what they want must have been real short on imagination.

And we have a winner. You are only limited by your imagination. A soild rule set does change this unless your brainwashed to believe otherwise.

To be honest, I agree with the people saying you always could play however you wanted.

If you played 40K or WHFB and someone said they would like to run an army with Chaos SMs plus Tau plus Tyranids, you might have thought it sounded like fun and made an army of IG plus Eldar plus Necrons, or you might have said you don't want to because it's silly.

The modern 40K and AoS rules allow you to do exactly the same. What has been taken away or eroded is the alternative method of play where you decide on an army, make a list according to restrictions that gives factions different characteristics and styles of fighting, and have a game of 1,200 points that is reasonably balanced against all comers. (GW never really balanced their games but it got a lot worse as time went on.)

I guess everyone missed the "without breaking the status quo" part of my initial post? The problem is not mine alone, the problem is that expectations are set in a certain way, and breaking away from those expectations is not trivial. I'm not talking theory here, I'm talking about real people who are set in their ways, who follow the rules and who have established a certain way of doing things based on the rules in the rule book. You don't "just" do whatever you want outside those confines when you're dealing with different people. You can call it "brainwashed" if you want, I'll call it "most people".

If you don't believe me, how come people don't play Unbound in 40k, but they have no problem accepting similar armies in AoS? I'll tell you. Expectations and status quo.

As for tournaments, the real world consequence of GW doing away with points is that I get to play games that are better balanced than anything GW could ever come up with. I think I can live with that.

I'd argue people do have an issue with accepting similar armies in AOS, hence it has apparently landed on its arse.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I'd argue people do have an issue with accepting similar armies in AOS, hence it has apparently landed on its arse.

Where are the numbers on that then?

Oh, and the reason you can do all these things without breaking the status quo is because GW have already broken it, thrown it to the floor and jumped up and down on it until it was dust.

Problem is, sometimes the status quo is the status quo because it's needed. Literally every other game on the market has a balancing mechanism, and there was nothing to suggest it either needed replacing or removal. Except that takes time, effort and, more importantly, money, whereas making the wargame equivalent of a Saturday morning cartoon where the new shiny gets its episode of the week (available in stores now folks!) takes much less investment of resources, and if enough people adopt that line, then everything is awesome.

Yeah, so the benefit of AoS is that there's a smaller group of players, but within that group they're more likely to want to play the way you want to play assuming you're one of the ones that stuck around... not really a good thing in my mind

I don't like Unbound in 40k. Didn't stop me from buying different units from different armies before "Unbound" was even a thing and it didn't stop me from occasionally asking my opponent if they wouldn't mind playing a mash up game using units that normally wouldn't be seen on the table together and wouldn't be legal.

I've played games of Necrons allied with Orks, Bretonnians allied with Skaven, Lizardmen allied with Orcs, lots of combinations of different armies I own. I even played a game of WHFB Lizardmen vs 40k Orks once If you ask, you'd be surprised what people might agree to if you aren't a dick about it, especially if you're willing to compromise "if I take this illegal thing, you can take that illegal thing".

The reason I don't like Unbound and don't like pointless, balanceless systems like AoS is because I never needed rules to tell me I was allowed to disregard rules from time to time. Yeah, sure, you often come up against an opponent that doesn't agree and wants to play it by the letter of the rules, but you have the option of finding someone else or just playing a regular game. Now every game is "irregular" unless you are willing to negotiate the Treaty of Versailles each time you want to play something that isn't a silly "lets put down random models and go pew pew" game.

 Mymearan wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I'd argue people do have an issue with accepting similar armies in AOS, hence it has apparently landed on its arse.

Where are the numbers on that then?

FFS.

Another flat report and a profits warning. This is not the report of a company which has relaunched one of its two key products to great success.

That's fine if you see it that way. Different perspectives, obviously.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I'd argue people do have an issue with accepting similar armies in AOS, hence it has apparently landed on its arse.

Where are the numbers on that then?

FFS.

Another flat report and a profits warning. This is not the report of a company which has relaunched one of its two key products to great success.

I doubt it's a great success. I also doubt it's the huge flop that some people think it is, however.

Thing is, my opinion is supported by zero revenue growth and statements from the CEO, if you're going to counter it, you'll need to provide more than just your opinion and speculation.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Thing is, my opinion is supported by zero revenue growth and statements from the CEO, if you're going to counter it, you'll need to provide more than just your opinion and speculation.

Well, you said it has

"has apparently landed on its arse"

Which is not a very exact statement, so not very easy to prove nor disprove! I agree that what the half-year report (?) says is indeed correct.

Azreal13 wrote:I suspect the 'pfft' refers to the fact that if you play AOS as written, then it makes a mockery of the aim of any sort of competitive event, which is to establish who does the thing best. Without checks and balances in place to ensure an even contest, then any result is meaningless, and if those checks and balances are added, then you're not playing AOS, you're playing a different game based on its rules.

Yes, this, thank you. (and the rest of the post) For months the mantra has been that AoS is a glorious revolution, getting rid of all those awful points and other ordering and balancing mechanisms (as unordered and unbalanced as they may have been) and so cleansing the game by chasing off those meany players who actually want a game with a reasonably level starting point and a winner at the end and some measure of competition in between. (The C-word. Amazing how much of a slur it became)

And now AoS, with (or without) those things, is apparently great for competitions, too.

I know Warhammer World puts on AoS events. Maybe you'd call them tournaments, or not. Maybe you'd view them as a nice day out just to roll some dice. In which case you definitely couldn't call it a tournament. But looking at some of the docs for them, I see a list of end-goals. Things you have to accomplish to win. I also see restrictions on the models you can bring, and use. That immediately pulls back on the 'freedom' of AoS.

Mymearan, you're posting here to stick up for AoS, that's fine. But the contradictions you're starting to bring up are convincing me more than ever that playing AoS needs a slug of the ol' GW kool-aid.

Or in other words, 'pffft'.

But Azreal's right again: this is a GW financials thread. I'll stop here, and just hope I've added some tiny hint of why people aren't sending GW's financials into the stratosphere

The WHW events aren't tournaments, things like the South Coast GT however, are. Playing AoS competitively doesn't need kool-aid, it needs comp, and if you want to call that a different game, that's fine, it's just semantics in the end. The only thing that matters is, after all, if you enjoy it or not.

AOS FTW!!!

Please avoid making posts with just a few words or no real content - thanks.

Has there been any update here since page 12? I'd love to update the OP if so (please link to the post it was revealed in if there is anything new to report).

 Mymearan wrote:
As for your second point, where you see a clumsy cash grab, I see the freedom to finally create the sort of army I want to play. So far this has resulted in zero negative experiences.

What stopped you doing it before? If you and your opponent are of like minds (which you obviously are if you're playing AoS), just agree to no factional divide in a game. You don't need someone sitting in an office in Nottingham to tell you you're allowed to do it.

The impact on the community is far less if a group of casual players take a balanced ruleset and have fun with it rather than not having a balanced ruleset to begin with.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
As for your second point, where you see a clumsy cash grab, I see the freedom to finally create the sort of army I want to play. So far this has resulted in zero negative experiences.

What stopped you doing it before? If you and your opponent are of like minds (which you obviously are if you're playing AoS), just agree to no factional divide in a game. You don't need someone sitting in an office in Nottingham to tell you you're allowed to do it.

The impact on the community is far less if a group of casual players take a balanced ruleset and have fun with it rather than not having a balanced ruleset to begin with.

Although this is true, the practicality of it is that a lot of people play the game in the way it is intended. So, if you happen to like the type of game that AoS envisions, you're more likely to find like-minded players of that sort, than you would have in the days of WHFB. As time progresses, the number of people who play the game significantly differently than envisioned shrinks; for example the number of 5e and 4e players of 40k must surely be small, now.

If you'd like to discuss AoS generally, please do so in the AoS section of Dakka here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/32.page

This thread is for discussing the half-year financial report, so let's stay on that topic, please!

removed by poster

Perhaps this thread should be allowed to die its natural death? I doubt there's much more on-topic discussion on the actual financials that's possible now, until the rumors of the next set come around

 Talys wrote:
Perhaps this thread should be allowed to die its natural death? I doubt there's much more on-topic discussion on the actual financials that's possible now, until the rumors of the next set come around

Agreed.