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.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
WotC don't charge $100+ for just the rulebooks though, GW do. If GW wanted to do the consumer friendly thing, they would online release their rules 6 months before going to print, wring out any RaW errors and broken stuff, then print a physical copy for those who want it.

That's probably because WotC don't rely on selling rules as a business model. They sell cards and don't change the rules unless they add something new. Banned cards aren't really a ruleset as much as a standard play format.

And GW sells models as their business model. GW is model company rather than book company.

Or rather, GW sells models and books as their business model.

Pretty much this. Unlike MtG, 40k can only sell veteran players a new set of rules and the occasional extra kit or two. Only new players really spend large amounts on models, once you start to plateau on those the only long term means of monetizing your participation is rules.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
WotC don't charge $100+ for just the rulebooks though, GW do. If GW wanted to do the consumer friendly thing, they would online release their rules 6 months before going to print, wring out any RaW errors and broken stuff, then print a physical copy for those who want it.

That's probably because WotC don't rely on selling rules as a business model. They sell cards and don't change the rules unless they add something new. Banned cards aren't really a ruleset as much as a standard play format.

And GW sells models as their business model. GW is model company rather than book company.

Or rather, GW sells models and books as their business model.

Pretty much this. Unlike MtG, 40k can only sell veteran players a new set of rules and the occasional extra kit or two. Only new players really spend large amounts on models, once you start to plateau on those the only long term means of monetizing your participation is rules.

\
and as I said a better comparison once you reach that point is WOTC's D&D product, not MtG which is priced around the same price. (and yeah each D&D book ahs about a page or 2 of errata last I checked too)

Yeah Magic the Gathering's structure makes it a print-money type affair. Each new block is going to keep a large number of players in the game and require them to buy cards. This might be cards direct and thus direct sales; or they are buying specific cards off card resellers who are buying bulk boxes of cards so still generating Wizards money.

In addition they've got game formates like Booster Draft where you buy cards on the night and play a game with them.

The business model is totally different to what GW can even envision doing with their miniatures. GW can't have blister-draft; it can't re-release an entire army in such a way that all the old models are invalidated for game use*.

It's not just that the product type is different, the whole underlying mechanics and interaction are different. Furthermore 1 card for Wizards of the Coast is MUCH cheaper for them to develop than 1 model for GW. Wizards, art wise, only has to commission the artwork then run it through the standard printers - GW has to make an entire new metal mould (at a huge cost) ontop of paying staff to design a model, part it, design a sprue and all the rest.


*Well ok they could, but it would be the marketing disaster of the year likely to cause them not to bleed customers but rupture an artery and lost a flood of customers - not just those for that army but all the others who would expect it to become a new pattern and thus would jump ship

Well, GW *could* do a blister draft model, akin to the likes of Mage Knight or the various Wizkids game, but I don’t believe they’d ever go that route (the marine/terminator collection Japan thing are doing is somewhat similar, but it doesn’t have any rules/stats). It would also work more for a Kill Team sort of game, not 40K proper.

 Stormonu wrote:
Well, GW *could* do a blister draft model, akin to the likes of Mage Knight or the various Wizkids game, but I don’t believe they’d ever go that route (the marine/terminator collection Japan thing are doing is somewhat similar, but it doesn’t have any rules/stats). It would also work more for a Kill Team sort of game, not 40K proper.

they'd also need to dumb factioning down, because you know your average casual players army would consist of 2 tac marines, a dire avenger and A Tyranid Warrior.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Well, GW *could* do a blister draft model, akin to the likes of Mage Knight or the various Wizkids game, but I don’t believe they’d ever go that route (the marine/terminator collection Japan thing are doing is somewhat similar, but it doesn’t have any rules/stats). It would also work more for a Kill Team sort of game, not 40K proper.

they'd also need to dumb factioning down, because you know your average casual players army would consist of 2 tac marines, a dire avenger and A Tyranid Warrior.

That wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing (at least Tyranids would get allies that way ) and casuals can get away with that now anyways, but I have seen strong factioning rules in the likes of at least Wizkid’s Mechwarrior clix game (as best I remember, it was 10 years ago or so), so it can be done.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
WotC don't charge $100+ for just the rulebooks though, GW do. If GW wanted to do the consumer friendly thing, they would online release their rules 6 months before going to print, wring out any RaW errors and broken stuff, then print a physical copy for those who want it.

That's probably because WotC don't rely on selling rules as a business model. They sell cards and don't change the rules unless they add something new. Banned cards aren't really a ruleset as much as a standard play format.

And GW sells models as their business model. GW is model company rather than book company.

Or rather, GW sells models and books as their business model.

Pretty much this. Unlike MtG, 40k can only sell veteran players a new set of rules and the occasional extra kit or two. Only new players really spend large amounts on models, once you start to plateau on those the only long term means of monetizing your participation is rules.

Wrong.
Any veteran player can start a new army and buy for hundreds of dollars of models and rules. I don't know anyone with all the factions of 40k collected. I have Imp Guard (two different armies) Space Marines, Inquisition... But still I went for the Elysian drop troops, hundreds of dollars. And I have many more armies of the Imperium to do. And that's only the Imperium. If GW released no model for the next 10 years, they would still earn money from me and from everyone else.
I would even say veteran players spend more, by buying FW, more stuff than they need (in order to do conversions, things like just collections, not just playing, sceneries (usually, new players are cheap on sceneries),...).

 Stormonu wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Well, GW *could* do a blister draft model, akin to the likes of Mage Knight or the various Wizkids game, but I don’t believe they’d ever go that route (the marine/terminator collection Japan thing are doing is somewhat similar, but it doesn’t have any rules/stats). It would also work more for a Kill Team sort of game, not 40K proper.

they'd also need to dumb factioning down, because you know your average casual players army would consist of 2 tac marines, a dire avenger and A Tyranid Warrior.

That wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing (at least Tyranids would get allies that way ) and casuals can get away with that now anyways, but I have seen strong factioning rules in the likes of at least Wizkid’s Mechwarrior clix game (as best I remember, it was 10 years ago or so), so it can be done.

the mechwarrior clix had rules for factions but IIRC it was more of a "if all your army is swordsworn you get X" but I dunno, Mechwarrior Dork Age wasn't something I was much intreasted in playing,

 godardc wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
WotC don't charge $100+ for just the rulebooks though, GW do. If GW wanted to do the consumer friendly thing, they would online release their rules 6 months before going to print, wring out any RaW errors and broken stuff, then print a physical copy for those who want it.

That's probably because WotC don't rely on selling rules as a business model. They sell cards and don't change the rules unless they add something new. Banned cards aren't really a ruleset as much as a standard play format.

And GW sells models as their business model. GW is model company rather than book company.

Or rather, GW sells models and books as their business model.

Pretty much this. Unlike MtG, 40k can only sell veteran players a new set of rules and the occasional extra kit or two. Only new players really spend large amounts on models, once you start to plateau on those the only long term means of monetizing your participation is rules.

Wrong.
Any veteran player can start a new army and buy for hundreds of dollars of models and rules. I don't know anyone with all the factions of 40k collected. I have Imp Guard (two different armies) Space Marines, Inquisition... But still I went for the Elysian drop troops, hundreds of dollars. And I have many more armies of the Imperium to do. And that's only the Imperium. If GW released no model for the next 10 years, they would still earn money from me and from everyone else.
I would even say veteran players spend more, by buying FW, more stuff than they need (in order to do conversions, things like just collections, not just playing, sceneries (usually, new players are cheap on sceneries),...).

Define veteran. because i know people that have been in this hobby for an extremely long time and the most they do is double up on starter miniatures and maybe 1 hero type thing at most. but thats only one anecdote. really unless you do a significant economic study of all the sales for any game or even industry you wont really get a good picture.

in any case the reason mtg can continue to pump out sets like no ones business because they rotate out cards consistently. it keeps the meta freshish. its why many "veteran" mtg players end up jumping into modern vint or legacy to keep using their cards. and those have dumpster fire metas.

I've got several 40k armies, and I suspect it's a little more common now due to allies. it's easier to justify an army when it's "I think I'll snag some custodes to ally with my guard" followed by "hmm that was kinda fun, I think I'll snag some more... followed by a year later "........... CRIKEY! I've got 3000 points of custodes all by themselves!"

BrianDavion wrote:
I've got several 40k armies, and I suspect it's a little more common now due to allies. it's easier to justify an army when it's "I think I'll snag some custodes to ally with my guard" followed by "hmm that was kinda fun, I think I'll snag some more... followed by a year later "........... CRIKEY! I've got 3000 points of custodes all by themselves!"

You have a whole 2 models? I really wish the game would move to a D12 system. It makes no sense a Custodes hits the same amount of times as a Man In A Fancy Hat.

It makes perfect sense, if you understand that the game is an abstract way of showing how units may potentially act in relation to each other.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
I've got several 40k armies, and I suspect it's a little more common now due to allies. it's easier to justify an army when it's "I think I'll snag some custodes to ally with my guard" followed by "hmm that was kinda fun, I think I'll snag some more... followed by a year later "........... CRIKEY! I've got 3000 points of custodes all by themselves!"

You have a whole 2 models? I really wish the game would move to a D12 system. It makes no sense a Custodes hits the same amount of times as a Man In A Fancy Hat.

now now custodes aren't quite THAT bad LOL.

and yeah it woulda been nice, if they where going to shift to a differant dice format 8th would have been the edition to do it. sadly D6 are really the only type of dice that are conveniant to throw enmasse. and 40K is all about throwing lots and lots and lots of dice