Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I beg to differ. Just look at this:

Look at it!!!

They even highlight the fact that it comes with transfers. My God man: Transfers!

TRANSFERS!!!

*faints*

Oh yeah. You are a sexy jeep. Such a dirty physics engine.

Both hands on the table buddy!

I do hope this is true, I remember a few months back there was a job posting for a digital production role that specifically said it was to make a digital version of WD... I assume this could come along with the revamp.

 Kaldor wrote:
IMO, any attempt to increase the quality of the content of WD is going to be met with derision by the player base, especially the internet. No matter how hard they try, people will still rant and rave about how crap their articles are, and WD won't see an increase in sales that will justify the expense of the this 'overhaul'. And so they'll scrap it, and go back to how it is.

You're right and wrong here, in my humble opinion.

You're right that no matter what GW tries to do to fix WD, people will find fault and begin ranting and raving about it. It is human nature to dislike change. The overall opinion of 6th edition seems to have smoothed out relatively quickly. Upon release, you'd have thought the sky was falling. Now that people have had a few games and made some adjustments, many people don't think it is as bad as they initially thought.

I think you're wrong to assume that if GW does something right with WD, that sales will not increase. After the initial outcry, if WD is putting out more/better content, why wouldn't people begin buying it again? It might take a month or two, but if WD gets a nice overhaul I'm sure a lot of people will be buying it again.

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment. - Inquisitorial mantra

Change is inevitable, all you can do is ensure it happens in your favor. - Axiom of Tzeentch

No we don't do discounts, not even for you. - Kirby's preamble to investors

*sigh* I'm starting to get really fed up with this. It would be nice to see WD improve, but how many times are we going to here this? I'd really like to believe it, I really would, but it seems that the only way to raise WD from the dead would be to hire a Necromancer as editor.

If, and I mean IF this is true, then it's going to have to be really good to get me to buy it again, and it would have to be fething phenomenal before I thought about taking a subscription.

Two things I'd wonder about though, would any 'improvement' come with a nice price rise to pay for it, and would the improvement be geared towards GW's target audience, thus isolating vets even more?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The other thing is that people want more 'hobby content'. But this is often at odds with the direction GW has taken in recent years which is why I'm sceptical about magazine overhauls. They want you to buy their RoB table and all their plastic scenery kits. Any terrain article will simply be about making one of those kits, or kitbashing several of those kits together.

Terrain making used to be frequently encouraged by describing it as being a cheap and fun side of the hobby. Well they're hardly going to tell you that now and make a point of showing you each month how to make scenery on the cheap when they're specifically trying to sell you kits for the table.

That's actually a huge and excellent point. One of the old, old White Dwarfs had instructions on how to make yourself a papercraft Baneblade. I've still got that issue, somewhere, packed away. The Predator, Vindicator, Spartan were all "make it yourself" cheap-n-cheerful conversions from your 3-in-a-box original Rhinos.

I loved the papercraft Baneblade. Made a couple out of plasticard.

I had (or should have but can't find at the moment) one that had schematics for building a Gobsmasha. Never built one, but it looked sweet as.

Hopefully it is just buried further in my closet, or absorbed somewhere into HBMC's collection at his place. It would have been a pity to lose that one.

The guys at White Dwarf should go ahead and read a bunch of issues of PP's No Quarter, for a magazine that's half the cost, half the size, and twice the quality of current WD.

The size and the price are fine, they just need to sort out the content.

Like it's been said before, it's not going to happen as long as they insist on everything coming from inside the studio, which basically equates to ads and army reports that are based on selling the newest army, where that new army trounces one of the older ones.

The content I enjoyed was the stuff that made me feel like the people at GW were gamers, not sales executives. Take for instance, the Tale of 4 Gamers. With each issue we saw the guy's armies grow, win and lose. The best part was that they also were talking about realistic armies, too, which weren't just the latest new release.

Or how about the Warhammer Siege battle reports that they had for a few issues in a row, where the first 2/3 of the article was how each castle got built- sometimes not even using Fortress parts at all- to fit their armies aesthetic?

It used to be a magazine "by gamers, for gamers". Now it a "by sales executives, as a case study on what the consumer should buy next". they barely even talk about older GW product, jut the new stuff.

If tale of 4 gamers came back right now as a 40K version, I swear that it would be Grey Knights/Blood Angels/Chaos/Dark Angels. Or maybe one guy would play Necrons.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The other thing is that people want more 'hobby content'. But this is often at odds with the direction GW has taken in recent years which is why I'm sceptical about magazine overhauls. They want you to buy their RoB table and all their plastic scenery kits. Any terrain article will simply be about making one of those kits, or kitbashing several of those kits together.

Terrain making used to be frequently encouraged by describing it as being a cheap and fun side of the hobby. Well they're hardly going to tell you that now and make a point of showing you each month how to make scenery on the cheap when they're specifically trying to sell you kits for the table.

This. I've got on my shelf, along with old Army Books from the 90s (Dwarfs ftw!), a book called "How To Make Wargames Terrain" produced by Games Workshop.

Spoiler:

Inside is a load of guides on how to make terrain for 40K and Fantasy including hills, woods, hedges, jungles, craters, rivers, marshes, houses, ruins and pretty much everything else you need out of cardboard, foam and bits and pieces from around the house.

Do a quick search on GWs site and whaddaya know? It doesn't exist there any more.

How To Make Wargames Terrain is a fun book. I still have it. I also remember at a UK Games Day jokingly accusing the terrain maker of sacrilege for cutting up a Star Wars Rebel Transport to make the crashed cargo ship on the cover.

I made one of the Gobsmashas - it used a Smarties tube as a cannon - that was BIG!

I would just like to see some consistency. If you are not interested in the flavor of the day then the book is completely worthless. If you are interested in said flavor then it is a really expensive catalog. I would say 2 issues a year have had something actually useful to me.

 kronk wrote:

Not having a discount for subscribers (like every other magazine, including Playboy) is just plain silly.

12 White Dwarf at retail $108, $9 per issue
White Dwarf Subscription through GW $75, $6.25 per issue
White Dwarf Subscription through MiniaturesMarket $50, $4.16 per issue

It's not as big as a discount as Playboy, but Playboy practically gives the magazine away at cost because they generate their real revenue through advertisements, and the more subscribers they have they more they can charge for advertisements. White Dwarf does not generate it's income from ad revenue.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
The other thing is that people want more 'hobby content'. But this is often at odds with the direction GW has taken in recent years which is why I'm sceptical about magazine overhauls. They want you to buy their RoB table and all their plastic scenery kits. Any terrain article will simply be about making one of those kits, or kitbashing several of those kits together.

Terrain making used to be frequently encouraged by describing it as being a cheap and fun side of the hobby. Well they're hardly going to tell you that now and make a point of showing you each month how to make scenery on the cheap when they're specifically trying to sell you kits for the table.

This. I've got on my shelf, along with old Army Books from the 90s (Dwarfs ftw!), a book called "How To Make Wargames Terrain" produced by Games Workshop.

Spoiler:

Inside is a load of guides on how to make terrain for 40K and Fantasy including hills, woods, hedges, jungles, craters, rivers, marshes, houses, ruins and pretty much everything else you need out of cardboard, foam and bits and pieces from around the house.

Do a quick search on GWs site and whaddaya know? It doesn't exist there any more.

That book is exactly what Im talking about...I remember when WD had articles similar to, probably even some of the same as the ones in that book.

 Lynata wrote:
"Moving out of the design studios"? I don't see how this is supposed to be good.

How hard can it be to simply go back to the old days where stuff like useful guides, interesting previews and fluff articles (Index Astartes, Index Malleus, Liber Sororitas, ...) all written by actual GW people and the occasional guest writer outweighed the adverts?

Okay, maybe there will be more content in this revamp, but it's apparently going to be written by different people with less regular contact to those who actually make the game. Red tape as it exists in any organisation with different departments will mean less current information, and any fluff written by outsiders might not line up with the studio vision, rendering it as susceptible to deviant interpretations as your average Black Library novel.

Generating enough good content on a regular basis isn't easy. Ever notice how many company newsletters, etc. start out monthly, then become quarterly, then kinda fade into the warp? WD is a very similar case just because the folks in the studio already have full-time jobs. The more you can use other, dedicated contributors, the better the content should be just because you'll have staff focused on generating content as their number one job.

WD can be as good as its budget and corporate oversight dictate. You can't do a magazine right on the cheap...it's just not a high-margin kind of industry. And if GW wants the content to be interesting, their suits can't breathe down the staffs' necks too much. WD needs to sell minis, but there are ways to do that without being blatent and crude about it. Note that suits tend to prefer blatent and crude.

Shifting the topic a bit, I've been wondering for months now if the white covers were part of a revamp or purely a design choice. In one of my past lives at a big magazine, our research showed that our light covers did better on the newsstand than our dark covers. Comparing the two magazines is an apples-to-oranges thing, but I thought about that research when I first realized that white covers were the new standard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 adamsouza wrote:

 kronk wrote:

Not having a discount for subscribers (like every other magazine, including Playboy) is just plain silly.

12 White Dwarf at retail $108, $9 per issue
White Dwarf Subscription through GW $75, $6.25 per issue
White Dwarf Subscription through MiniaturesMarket $50, $4.16 per issue

It's not as big as a discount as Playboy, but Playboy practically gives the magazine away at cost because they generate their real revenue through advertisements, and the more subscribers they have they more they can charge for advertisements. White Dwarf does not generate it's income from ad revenue.

Correct. Magazine publishers would prefer to charge a high cover price if they could. But magazines that sell ads are mostly focused on their rate bases. So they'll give the thing away so long it slows or stops the bleeding in their readership and keeps their rate base afloat.

I agree that the cover price seems excessive at first glance. But I also tend to think it's probably a realistic price for a glossy magazine with no outside advertising and a low number of readers.

I find google to be a great giver of perspective:

From 1994:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/rec.games.frp.dnd/G-gow54Zk_g

I mean look at it, its full of *STUFF*, all ads for their badly sculpted minatures (Mithril make the best
figures I think I have ever seen), or some battle played out by guys who
have absolutely no-idea about tactics (they just no how to use fudged
minatures and fire power)

Oh come on. Sure White Dwarf has become a trade magazine for GW, but
if you like GW's games it isn't that bad. I have a bunch of those
old White Dwarves everybody praises, and most of the material
just isn't that good. If you don't like GW games, don't buy it. At
least you know what you are getting unlike some gaming magazines.

As far as miniatures, well Citadel is way to expensive, but most of
there stuff isn't bad.

GW games often boil down to dice rolling, and the luck factor is just too
great. I mean, you roll for random reinforcements, random map placements,
even random setups! GW games are just that; games. But don't try to pass it
off as a tactical challenge because it isn't.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/rec.games.frp.advocacy/xqhx4FAUFD4
1992, this one is priceless:

BTW, I wonder what is going to happen to GW during the coming years. I know
a LOT of people who were once Warhammer-addicts (including myself), but are
turning away from GW en masse because they don't longer like the "improved"
games such as WH40K, WFB or Space Marine. It seems GW is producing more
and more stuff that should attract younger players (e.g. steam tanks, noise
marines, childish magic etc...). And if so, where are all those younger
players going to get the money to buy a lot of expensive miniatures?

It is like every argument we have has been had before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Noise marines to attract little Johnny? Too good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oooh, from 1999:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/dejanews.comm.wayofthewolf/4vdy0Ju6W4I

I had a friend that worked at GW U.S. Retail Sales, and he called me one day.
They had gotten a letter from a disgruntled customer that the magazine
sucked, and he felt he was being ripped off. They wanted my opinion, and at
the time I felt it was worth the money. THEN they went to Fat Dwarf, and I
felt better.

But they told this fellow, and their OFFICIAL line is, that the magazine is a
Monthly Catalog of their Miniatures (read the top of the magazine!). WHAT
THE HELL IS THAT?

gorgon wrote:


I agree that the cover price seems excessive at first glance. But I also tend to think it's probably a realistic price for a glossy magazine with no outside advertising and a low number of readers.

I forgot to mention that shipping costs should be considered as well.

 pretre wrote:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/rec.games.frp.advocacy/xqhx4FAUFD4
1992, this one is priceless:

BTW, I wonder what is going to happen to GW during the coming years. I know
a LOT of people who were once Warhammer-addicts (including myself), but are
turning away from GW en masse because they don't longer like the "improved"
games such as WH40K, WFB or Space Marine.

To be fair, those people were right, to an extent. Almost everyone who played GW games 20 years ago has gone away from the hobby. Most people who played the games 15 or 10 years ago have, too. The game endures, but the community, not so much. The demographics have also undoubtedly changed, as have people's mindsets.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
To be fair, those people were right, to an extent. Almost everyone who played GW games 20 years ago has gone away from the hobby. Most people who played the games 15 or 10 years ago have, too. The game endures, but the community, not so much. The demographics have also undoubtedly changed, as have people's mindsets.

I don't know about that as a fault of GW. One could say that almost everyone who played anything 20 years ago is probably not still in that hobby.

Also, to say that the community is not enduring is a little strange, considering we're on a site that's been around for what, 15 years?

 pretre wrote:

I don't know about that as a fault of GW. One could say that almost everyone who played anything 20 years ago is probably not still in that hobby.

Also, to say that the community is not enduring is a little strange, considering we're on a site that's been around for what, 15 years?

Quite a few of them are still wargamers though and as such are still in the hobby. Your second point misses that the demographics have changed, how many Dakka forumites were from at the begining?

Palindrome wrote:

 pretre wrote:

I don't know about that as a fault of GW. One could say that almost everyone who played anything 20 years ago is probably not still in that hobby.

Also, to say that the community is not enduring is a little strange, considering we're on a site that's been around for what, 15 years?

Quite a few of them are still wargamers though and as such are still in the hobby. Your second point misses that the demographics have changed, how many Dakka forumites were from at the begining?

I would argue that many of the people from 20 years ago probably have an equal percentage chance of being GW gamers, other gamers or not gamers at all. No way to know though without finding a list of GW gamers from 20 years ago.

That's a great question. Most of the ones that I tend to listen to have been around for 10-15 years. Sounds like a good poll question though.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
Almost everyone who played GW games 20 years ago has gone away from the hobby.

Hey! I'm still here

Yeah, someone get Lego to throw up a poll:

How many years have you played GW games
0-1
1-3
3-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20+

 AegisGrimm wrote:
The guys at White Dwarf should go ahead and read a bunch of issues of PP's No Quarter, for a magazine that's half the cost, half the size, and twice the quality of current WD.

I'd like to know who taught you math. They deserve a beating if they made you think $7.50 is half of $9.

Isn't NQ also about 100 pages?

 pretre wrote:
I find google to be a great giver of perspective:

From 1994:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/rec.games.frp.dnd/G-gow54Zk_g

I mean look at it, its full of *STUFF*, all ads for their badly sculpted minatures (Mithril make the best
figures I think I have ever seen), or some battle played out by guys who
have absolutely no-idea about tactics (they just no how to use fudged
minatures and fire power)

Oh come on. Sure White Dwarf has become a trade magazine for GW, but
if you like GW's games it isn't that bad. I have a bunch of those
old White Dwarves everybody praises, and most of the material
just isn't that good. If you don't like GW games, don't buy it. At
least you know what you are getting unlike some gaming magazines.

As far as miniatures, well Citadel is way to expensive, but most of
there stuff isn't bad.

GW games often boil down to dice rolling, and the luck factor is just too
great. I mean, you roll for random reinforcements, random map placements,
even random setups! GW games are just that; games. But don't try to pass it
off as a tactical challenge because it isn't.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/rec.games.frp.advocacy/xqhx4FAUFD4
1992, this one is priceless:

BTW, I wonder what is going to happen to GW during the coming years. I know
a LOT of people who were once Warhammer-addicts (including myself), but are
turning away from GW en masse because they don't longer like the "improved"
games such as WH40K, WFB or Space Marine. It seems GW is producing more
and more stuff that should attract younger players (e.g. steam tanks, noise
marines, childish magic etc...). And if so, where are all those younger
players going to get the money to buy a lot of expensive miniatures?

It is like every argument we have has been had before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Noise marines to attract little Johnny? Too good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oooh, from 1999:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/dejanews.comm.wayofthewolf/4vdy0Ju6W4I

I had a friend that worked at GW U.S. Retail Sales, and he called me one day.
They had gotten a letter from a disgruntled customer that the magazine
sucked, and he felt he was being ripped off. They wanted my opinion, and at
the time I felt it was worth the money. THEN they went to Fat Dwarf, and I
felt better.

But they told this fellow, and their OFFICIAL line is, that the magazine is a
Monthly Catalog of their Miniatures (read the top of the magazine!). WHAT
THE HELL IS THAT?

This is an amazing post.

To be fair, those people were right, to an extent. Almost everyone who played GW games 20 years ago has gone away from the hobby. Most people who played the games 15 or 10 years ago have, too. The game endures, but the community, not so much. The demographics have also undoubtedly changed, as have people's mindsets.

I wouldn't say almost everyone, but yeah there is serious attrition for every game over 20 years. The local league I'm in has at least 6 members who've been playing since 2nd edition. The next store over has gamers going back to 3rd.

There were some pretty awesome games I played 20 years ago, but one does get bored and move on.

That being said, I don't expect them to cater to us lifers, but they shouldn't ignore us either.

 adamsouza wrote:

To be fair, those people were right, to an extent. Almost everyone who played GW games 20 years ago has gone away from the hobby. Most people who played the games 15 or 10 years ago have, too. The game endures, but the community, not so much. The demographics have also undoubtedly changed, as have people's mindsets.

I wouldn't say almost everyone, but yeah there is serious attrition for every game over 20 years. The local league I'm in has at least 6 members who've been playing since 2nd edition. The next store over has gamers going back to 3rd.

There were some pretty awesome games I played 20 years ago, but one does get bored and move on.

That being said, I don't expect them to cater to us lifers, but they shouldn't ignore us either.

Out of interest, what would you like to see being catered for as a "lifer"?

I'm in my mid 20s, been playing 40k for a few years, and played it as a kid as well (though I had no idea what I was doing). I'd like to see battle reports with semi-competative, or at least decent lists, decent fluff articles, artwork and house rules, even if they're a little crazy/unbalanced.