Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2007/11/21 13:45:00
Subject: Re:What would a game have to have to beat 40k?
|
 |
Inexperienced VF-1A Valkyrie Brownie
|
bigtmac68 wrote:How about a 'pro circuit' ?
Type tourney system out of the gate. I know that kind of thing has been very succesful at helping to market certain card games. Since there is allready a dedicated tournament community for the wargaming hobby, would having a tourney circuit with say a 50k grand prize at the end be enough to make you try a game.
Obviously if the game blows nothing will help but if it followed the was a solid game with balanced tactical game play ( and had good plastic vehicle and infantry kits in the initial release ) that might be enough to at least prompt the hard core group within your average store to give it a shot.
Giving prize support out ( not just medals and certificates, but real prizes ) to any flgs willing to sponsor your game and positively incentivising stores to stock more product ( as opposed to trying to strong arm stores like the VOID sales team did )
Course this is probably more of a dream scenario for me than something any mini company is ever likley to do, still cool to wish for.
Or just do as the chip (crisp) companies do in Canada, pay for the sales space., Pay a premium to the FLGS for having your product displayed the most prominently. It's an expense, but it is advertising. And if yopu have the money to do it out of the gates and a suitable product line "carpe de wall" by getting the FLGS to devote former GW space to your new product.
A slick advertising campaign and a willingness to ensure a supported product hits the floor is enoungh to break into the gaming market (see the xbox).
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2007/11/21 18:08:10
Subject: Re:What would a game have to have to beat 40k?
|
 |
Screeching Screamer of Tzeentch
|
Many have already posted this, but a new game has to have a deep and interesting background. The second requirement is that if it is a Skirmish game then it's not a replacement for battle systems like 40k and WFB. I don't know of anything out there with a solid background that will let us fight battles and not skirmishes. I predict PP will eventually head that way. They used the skirmish concept to make entry cheap and get customers. Now they are going to start focusing on larger and larger battles IMO.
The last requirement people shouldn't forget is they must be profitable. Nothing will be maintained or supported unless it makes good money.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2007/11/21 19:23:48
Subject: Re:What would a game have to have to beat 40k?
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
If you want big battles not skirmishes you need small scale figures like 6mm or maybe 10mm.
GW did this with Epic, I don't know why they stopped. Probably they found the profitability of 40K was higher. Also I think a lot of players like the modelling aspect of 28mm.
There are various other 6mm SF ranges and rules sets out there.
I assume a "solid background" means a lot of fluff. Not many games offer fluff like 40K does. However it would not be hard to get an SF author to write up a bunch of fluff. THe problem is what is going to be the popular style. I have just been reading Wasteland of Flint and House of Reeds by Thomas Harlan. The series offers an interesting hard SF background of alternative history and the possibility of involving ancient races (the First Sun people) but it is much harder SF than 40K. No undead god-emperors and psychic daemons and so on.
How many users like 40K because of the fluff? Would the same users be attracted to different fluff?
I think a lot of people would be put off by a pro circuit. Tournaments with modest prizes sponsored by the entrants, fine. I don't have to join if I don't want. But I am not going to pay extra for figures to give away $50K to some geezer who hasn't got a life. The point about a pro circuit is you are no longer promoting the game as a game in itself but as a kind of spectator sport.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2007/11/21 19:26:09
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2007/11/21 21:19:09
Subject: Re:What would a game have to have to beat 40k?
|
 |
[MOD]
Madrak Ironhide
|
I think the 28m also allowed GW to really push their hobby line, which people
probably didn't need so many specialist tools to model epic with.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2007/11/21 23:39:51
Subject: Re:What would a game have to have to beat 40k?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Long Beach, CA
|
100% statistically and mathematically analized and justified points assignment.
AWSOME models
Fair treatment of all armies as far as releases etc...
No vague rules
Lower prices
AWSOME fluff
|
"Do NOT ask me if you can fire the squad you forgot to shoot once we are in the assault phase, EVER!!!"
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2007/11/22 01:13:14
Subject: Re:What would a game have to have to beat 40k?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Video games are killing the table top gaming star.
Unless you cultivate a good following, you will lose your fan base. GW cuts thier own throat it this area with the pricing issue. The gaming industry is dying. It blows, but its the cost of progress. Prepaints, once the "new thing" are appearently the nich of the nich.
As for Warmachine... They have advertising. Too bad other companies don't take it as seriously.
For every game you hear about there are ten more that are ten times better that you won't unless you look really hard for it.
|
At Games Workshop, we believe that how you behave does matter. We believe this so strongly that we have written it down in the Games Workshop Book. There is a section in the book where we talk about the values we expect all staff to demonstrate in their working lives. These values are Lawyers, Guns and Money. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2007/11/22 06:17:50
Subject: Re:What would a game have to have to beat 40k?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
If they made a holographic version of 40K (like in Star Wars Episode 4) That would be a BAMF
|
Comparing tournament records is another form of e-peen measuring.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2007/11/24 18:57:49
Subject: Re:What would a game have to have to beat 40k?
|
 |
Inexperienced VF-1A Valkyrie Brownie
|
smart_alex wrote:100% statistically and mathematically analized and justified points assignment.
AWSOME models
Fair treatment of all armies as far as releases etc...
No vague rules
Lower prices
AWSOME fluff
So if I sumerize what you said lower prices and moderately playable rules.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2007/11/24 20:52:47
Subject: Re:What would a game have to have to beat 40k?
|
 |
Executing Exarch
|
Any official tourney by a company who encouraged outside mineature lines such as gw would find itself assaulted with so many lawsuits it would crumble under them. Seriously if wargame 3000 was released tomorrow, with mostly just rules, a few models, and encouraged you to find other cool sources of "models" to play there new rules/games they would be hit with so much litigation there childrens children would still be paying off the losses.
And what would these companies be suing for? There is no law that I'm aware of that would cover anything like this so long as the ones who encourage other miniature use didn't specify what other models to use. Encouraging players to use "whatever models they want" is by no means illegal or grounds for a law suit.
|
**** Phoenix ****
Threads should be like skirts: long enough to cover what's important but short enough to keep it interesting. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2007/11/24 21:07:03
Subject: Re:What would a game have to have to beat 40k?
|
 |
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress
Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.
|
The only game to come close to taking a sizable market share was Battletech, but FASA and successors would never fix the rules enough to reach true mass market, outside of a computer screen.
Privateer Press is good, and getting bigger but is full of self congratualtory propoganda of how good they are. Mainly to impress the kiddies, the white dwarf syndrome is starting to kick in even there. I have noted recent publications are increasingly dumbed down - annoying but good marketing I suppose.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2007/11/24 21:08:13
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2007/11/24 21:40:05
Subject: Re:What would a game have to have to beat 40k?
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
Battletech rules were fine in the first edition. There were a few improvements later but nothing like the kind of rewrite GW have had to do (and apparently failed with.)
The reason why they never became a big tournament standard like 40K is because GW put a lot more effort and support into tournaments than FASA did.
And to repeat my theme from early in the thread, GW built their network of shows and Games Days not on 40K and WHFB but on a wide variety of games they have since abandoned.
>>Encouraging players to use "whatever models they want" is by no means illegal or grounds for a law suit.
No other company can run an "official" 40K tournament without permission from GW or they would be sued for "passing off". Only GW can run or licence official tournaments and they are not going to sanction the use of unofficial figures.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2007/12/08 04:06:21
Subject: Re:What would a game have to have to beat 40k?
|
 |
Gargantuan Gargant
|
It would be a tall order, but if any company could come up with a decent game and comparable line of miniatures, but cut the cost in half they could destroy GW.
The biggest problem I see with ALL of GW's competition is that they eventually try to charge GW prices for their products.
ROLEX get big $$
No matter how nice your ROLLECKS is I'm not paying ROLEX money for it.
SHOCKFORCE - possibly better game, cheaper miniatures, couldn't get a foothold in stores, then GW sued them out of buissiness.
VOID - nice miniatures, good enough rules. Prices comparable to GW. See Rolex comment.
WAR MACHINE - closest to GW. Also costs just as much as GW. little to no customization options.
|
|
|
 |
 |
|