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.

Can't say I know much of anything about online games, but it seems that if stuff like Star Wars, the Matrix and D&D are struggling it's really a stretch to imagine Warhammer Fantasy taking off, especially with so many other Tolkeinesque games out there.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Can't say I know much of anything about online games, but it seems that if stuff like Star Wars, the Matrix and D&D are struggling it's really a stretch to imagine Warhammer Fantasy taking off, especially with so many other Tolkeinesque games out there.

The difference being that starwars galaxies, the matrix online, and D&D were all laughably bad games with only the loyal fanbases keeping them aloft (and in the case of star wars making it succsessful for a short time despite being the worst of the bunch). If warhammer online turns out to be a mix of DOAC and WoW like its looking to be then it will probably be a pretty successful game. It has a record number of beta applicants already so its got a lot of buzz around it as a big alternative for those tired of WoW.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The difference being that starwars galaxies, the matrix online, and D&D were all laughably bad games with only the loyal fanbases keeping them alof.

Oh, I see. Warhammer Online will certainly be different then. [/sarcasm]

Seriously, if the art I've seen so far is very interesting, we're far from it when it comes to actual screenshots. And considering GW general pricing policy I don't think many will be able to afford a subscription...

The Matrix--a MMO where you can and in fact must play with only yourself and your trusted yourself as companions.

DDO--a MMO that forces you to group with the worst player base the internet has to offer. Sorry, no soloing allowed, we already did that with The Matrix.

SWG--play for 3 years, become a Jedi! Omygodz the 10 year olds all want to be Jedi too, so we're going to release something called NGE. All YOU need to know is, EVERYBODY is a Jedi now! All other classes are superflous, since the Jedi can do everything.

There's a reason those games are failures.

While I don't see the Warhammer IP making people go 'Waaagh', at the very least it offers a stable background to build upon--unlike the 'historical fantasy' that was DAOC. Personally I want to see the game be successful so my MMO friends don't go 'huh' when I say I'm going to the game store--cause they always think I'm going to buy Eve Online or something...not actually go socialize and play miniature tabletop games.

Just remember, in a year...you'll have new people coming here wanting to know how GW released all the cool models for Warhammer before Warhammer was released.

Slightly off topic, but what ever happened to The Lord of the Rings Online? And wasn't there some sort of licensed Conan offering as of late?

Blackheart666 wrote:

Pariah Press wrote: I don't get it. Many of the posters here have held the position that Kirby was the poster-boy for everything that was wrong with GW, and now that he's retiring as CEO, the only response is "meh?"

It's because the new guy plays Spase Marinez (hur!), isn't it?

it's because he's still there...

Kirby is still at the top of the pile.. and a current marketing guy is moving up.. that means there is going to be no significant change.

please get informed.

He's the chairman of the board now. In most companies, that means he's essentially relinquished day-to-day control of the company.

I am looking forward to going WAAAAGH for the new game. That, and hearing my wife yell "Too slow-la! Orks orks orks orks!" while pvping. We both play WoW a lot, but the so/so pvp is starting to leave us wanting a change of pace. W.A.R. might not be it, but it will likely be a fun change.

(Full disclosure: since there are no ork females, she will likely play a dark elf. I am getting the divorce papers ready. Green is obviously best...)

I also heartily agree that W.A.R. ought to outdo DAoC by a long shot due to the strong IP it brings. (Strong in the "well known" sense.) I didn't start DAoC because it was "just another medieval fantasy game, and a really random one at that!" but I heard it had great pvp.
Now, I only played WoW because Blizzard touches my happy place everytime I install their games. If I can get the great pvp that WoW lacks, and a world/ip that is fairly compelling like Warhammer, I could be pretty happy. Still, I want 40k online, not WHFB. I want to be an Inquisitor, or at least a hot SoB. Rowr.

I hear ya, Wehrkind, I hear ya.

I wanna be a Chaos Spawn though.

Blackheart666 wrote:

Asmodai wrote:

dogma wrote:It is a positive note that WHO is essentially a slightly modified version of Dark Age of Camelot, which was fairly succesful.

http://www.mmorpgchart.com/Chart7_files/Subscriptions_12473_image001.gif

Yep. Maybe they'll even manage to meet it's 1% market share!

that's over a year old.

If you have more recent data, feel free to enlighten me.

regardless of you trying to be hip and cool and failing to do more than come off as a low grade troll... if WoW's userbase of 9 million (approximate) is 52% of the total market. that means that the total market is approximately 18 million (give or take.)

so 1% in actual subscription number is approximately 180k.

180K trimes $15 a month = $2.7 million US.

Note: GW's investment in this is currently... well... none. they should be getting a lisence fee from Mythic for the IP. Which means it's free money for GW and the only work they have to do is to keep Mythic true to their IP.

Excuse me?

Guess what? Games cost money to operate. That $2.7 million US needs to cover marketing, server maintenance, customer support, etc. Not to mention that they'll need to recover the initial development cost at some point.

GW not having an investment means that they'll also see less of the return. They'll get the licensing fee, but a probably relatively small piece of the pie.

but you can't expect much... based on your user picture, you're a WoW fanboy... general forum much?

Erm, no. I haven't played WoW in a year and a half. I usually work 10-12 hour days at the firm, so I prefer to spend my limited free time either painting or hanging out with friends in real life. I just can't justify the time investment MMO's require. That and the way combat is structured, if I wanted to do boring and repetitive tasks for 8 hours a day, I'd just apply to the GM Auto-Assembly Plant and at least get paid for my trouble.

I do like pandas though, hence the picture. Judging by your irrational prejudice against pandas, god's only perfect creature, I can only conclude that you're a hollow and pathetic creature, somewhat akin to Gollum. The "general forum much" is also amusing considering I've been posting here since EZBoard (gotta be nearly a decade now) and you have 59 posts and seem to have just come to stir up trouble.

If you mean 'general forum' as in 4chan, Craigslist and that sort of thing, then hell no. I wouldn't touch those cesspools with a 20ft pole.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Can't say I know much of anything about online games, but it seems that if stuff like Star Wars, the Matrix and D&D are struggling it's really a stretch to imagine Warhammer Fantasy taking off, especially with so many other Tolkeinesque games out there.

E.g. LotRO. Lord of the Rings online was actually a pretty good game from the demo/trial - pretty graphics and at least average game play. It also benefited from strong marketing and probably the holy grail of fantasy licenses. As far as I can tell it's doing OK, but hardly shattering records.

That indicates that it's going to be very difficult for any newcomer, not matter what license and how good, to really make an impression in the marketplace. MMO's are social games and people seem to play what their friends play. As a result bad momentum is fatal and good momentum builds on itself.

I don't expect Warhammer Online to flop. It'll probably be successful and with luck Mythic will make money off of it. The licensing fees and free publicity for GW aren't about to suddenly reverse the company's woes though.

Algeroth wrote:I don't think Apocalypse has fallen that short..
For example a City on the south coast of England, did almost £10k in sales on the day of release. It was a record for that particular store.

Increased sales of £10K + city catchement + day of release + major hype = failure.

It is was £100K sales then it could be considered successful.

That's unfair, Orlanth. The hype over Apoc isn't like the hype over a video game release--no one's worried that stuff will sell out (other than the special sets, which were mostly pre-reserved anyway), so I wouldn't expect any but the most hardcore of gamers to rush in to snap things up on the very first day.

One hobby shop doing $10k of sales in a day is a good thing in any sense of the word. I used to help run one long ago, and 10k was a good month!

So what statistics are you using to equate Apoc with flop?

In about a month GW will publish their interim trading figures for the autumn to Christmas season and then we will know for sure if Apoc has been a failure.

Orlanth wrote:

Algeroth wrote:I don't think Apocalypse has fallen that short..
For example a City on the south coast of England, did almost £10k in sales on the day of release. It was a record for that particular store.

Increased sales of £10K + city catchement + day of release + major hype = failure.

It is was £100K sales then it could be considered successful.

Heh, your successful quote equates to $200,000 in one day of sales. The store owner, at 45% markup, would roughly pocket $100,000 in one day of sales. Anyone that has owned a gaming store will tell you that isn't in the ballpark, the zipcode or even the right country. To be honest, $20,000 in one day for a store sounds suspect to me in the first place...

That indicates that it's going to be very difficult for any newcomer, not matter what license and how good, to really make an impression in the marketplace. MMO's are social games and people seem to play what their friends play. As a result bad momentum is fatal and good momentum builds on itself.

Its sort of a misconception about the MMO industry that pandering to WoWs leftovers is bad business. Before world of warcraft an MMO snagging 400 thousand subscribers at its peak was considered a smash hit, which should tell you about the money blizzard makes off of WoW (more than a few countries GDP). City of heroes peaked at 400 thousand and NCsoft made back its development and upkeep costs many times over, similarly even with the flop that EQ2 was it still made a good bit of money for its respective companies. To date the only failed high production mmo that I am aware of has been auto assault.

Just because WoW peaked at 9.75 million subscribers (146,250,000 dollars per month at 15 per month, without the 20-50 dollar entry fee of box purchase) doesn't mean other MMOs will struggle to be commercial success. If anything WoW has enabled the MMO industry by growing it several times over then providing a never ending supply of ex players looking for a different title.

I never thought of that. Wow churning out the Ex-MMORPGers...

malfred wrote:I never thought of that. Wow churning out the Ex-MMORPGers...

GW does the same thing within the miniature hobby.


And by the way fellas, once we’re declaring single takings from single stores, or levels of internet hype to be proof of the success or failure of Apocalypse, we’re into the world of the stupidly speculative. There is no proof at present to the success or failure of Apocalypse, the next quarter’s report will be the next piece of meaningful information one way or the other.

Even then, the success or failure of Apocalypse is hardly evidence one way or the other of GW’s future. Stopping the sales decline, long term, and operating profitably at a stable sales level is long term goal, three or four years down the line.

Mark Wells is the guy that's been giving the Games Day retail seminars the last two years and was the big push that's turned GW attitudes towards retailers around. Some of you may remember my "reports" (read: rants) the last few years after GDLAs. This year I don't think I even made one becuase there was nothing fun to rant about and all the information given was actually geared towards *shock, gasp* retailers! I've been working independant game retail for almost 5 years and the differance between GW now and then is night and day. We still have (sometimes major) issues with them, but the differance is now they get taken care of instead of blown off and we actually get our sales rep to take care of them instead of getting the corporate run around.

And Mark Wells is the guy they brought in from Europe to get GWUS in gear. So now you say he's the new CEO? Frelling sweet, says me! If they're going to have corporate suits running the company, at least they got one with a brain. Dunno if this will be a Warhammer rennaisance, but for the first time in a long while I'm optimistic about the future of GW. Maybe even enough to tear me back from warmachine. Probably not, but maybe.

PS: FOR THE HORDE!!

Blackheart666 wrote:

Note: GW's investment in this is currently... well... none. they should be getting a lisence fee from Mythic for the IP. Which means it's free money for GW and the only work they have to do is to keep Mythic true to their IP.

I believe thats incorrect, if you include the 6 million they sank into it with a previous company before moving on to someone else....

Kalamadea wrote:Mark Wells is the guy that's been giving the Games Day retail seminars the last two years and was the big push that's turned GW attitudes towards retailers around. Some of you may remember my "reports" (read: rants) the last few years after GDLAs. This year I don't think I even made one becuase there was nothing fun to rant about and all the information given was actually geared towards *shock, gasp* retailers! I've been working independant game retail for almost 5 years and the differance between GW now and then is night and day. We still have (sometimes major) issues with them, but the differance is now they get taken care of instead of blown off and we actually get our sales rep to take care of them instead of getting the corporate run around.

And Mark Wells is the guy they brought in from Europe to get GWUS in gear. So now you say he's the new CEO? Frelling sweet, says me! If they're going to have corporate suits running the company, at least they got one with a brain. Dunno if this will be a Warhammer rennaisance, but for the first time in a long while I'm optimistic about the future of GW. Maybe even enough to tear me back from warmachine. Probably not, but maybe.

PS: FOR THE HORDE!!

Hello:

Actually that is Steve Morgan. Not Mark Wells. Steve is still head of US Direct/Trade.

Thanks,

Rich Curren
GWUS Web Manager

Hello:

Actually that is Steve Morgan. Not Mark Wells. Steve is still head of US Direct/Trade.

Thanks,

Rich Curren
GWUS Web Manager

Rich,

do they give ninja training now at GWHQ? I love how you appear out of the ether sometimes with timley and informative microposts.

Not a slam at all, it is appreciated and I think shows that you folks are doing a really good job of paying attention to your customers, even the annoying grumpy whiny ones ( Not on Dakka,, gasp )

I just picture you kind of lurking in the shadows to jump in the middle of conversations and give anwers kind of like the "Ask a Ninja" guy in a red shirt

Keep it up bro, love it.

Thanks for the clarification, Rich!

Damn, I could have sworn that was his name. Now I'm FAR less optimistic :(

*TOPICAL REFERENCE ALERT*


This is a bit like Putin ending his second term and becoming PM, and endorsing some random underling to his old job. Very fun game of musical chairs I'm sure, but this will achieve very little, especially given that they "share the same vision". I certainly doubt that anything the new guy does will have people flocking back to GW.

Just because Kirby says that they "share the same vision" in a press release, doesn't mean that they actually "share the same vision."

Tazok wrote:APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE

The Board of Games Workshop Group PLC (‘Games Workshop’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce the appointment of Mark Wells to the Board as Chief Executive of the Company with immediate effect.

Mark joined Games Workshop in 2000 from Boots plc and has been Head of Sales at the Company since 2006.

Tom Kirby, who has been Chairman and Chief Executive of Games Workshop since 2000, will continue as Chairman of the Company.

Tom Kirby said: ‘Mark has the vision, ability and passion to lead Games Workshop in its next phase of growth. He not only understands Games Workshop’s business model and its special culture and spirit, but he is a strong advocate of the values that are so important to the Company.

‘Mark and I share the same vision for Games Workshop, and we have ambitious plans for growth and value creation. I trust Mark absolutely to do the right thing for the Company, our shareholders and our staff.’

No additional information should be disclosed under paragraph 9.6.13 of the Listing Rules of the UK Listing Authority.

Background info. on new CEO:

Mark Wells, age 45, MA Law, St Johns College, Cambridge (Exhibition), MBA
Stirling University. Qualified as a solicitor with Messrs Herbert Smith. Next
plc: Retail, Mail Order, Buying and M&A. Various management roles with Boots
plc, including Director of Customer Service, Boots The Chemists and Director of
Merchandise and Marketing, Boots Stores, Netherlands. Games Workshop General
Manager UK Sales and Hobby Division CEO.
This information is provided by RNS

Please don't get my hopes up and then dash them against the rocks again.

Pariah Press wrote: Just because Kirby says that they "share the same vision" in a press release, doesn't mean that they actually "share the same vision."

Likewise, it doesn't mean they don't either. Double negatives aside, it probably means what it says.

This is bad as Kirby isn't very popular among consumers who don't own stock. This shows that the statement isn't meant for consumers to read, but investors who were happy with Kirby's practices ( ) to feel all warm and fuzzy.

So the way I see it, associating Wells with Kirby's ideals is bad for both investors and consumers. Stocks have slumped under Kirby's management. He even admitted that most of the mistakes are due to poor management. Management starts at the very top.

I am non plussed by all of this. I don't really care though. There are plenty of better games on the block, so however GW chooses to hang themselves is of no concern to me.

Hellfury wrote:

Pariah Press wrote: Just because Kirby says that they "share the same vision" in a press release, doesn't mean that they actually "share the same vision."

Likewise, it doesn't mean they don't either. Double negatives aside, it probably means what it says.

This is bad as Kirby isn't very popular among consumers who don't own stock. This shows that the statement isn't meant for consumers to read, but investors who were happy with Kirby's practices ( ) to feel all warm and fuzzy.

So the way I see it, associating Wells with Kirby's ideals is bad for both investors and consumers. Stocks have slumped under Kirby's management. He even admitted that most of the mistakes are due to poor management. Management starts at the very top.

I am non plussed by all of this. I don't really care though. There are plenty of better games on the block, so however GW chooses to hang themselves is of no concern to me.

It doesn’t give any information either way, it’s a press release and ultimately nothing should be taken from it other than the basic fact that Kirby is no longer CEO, and he’s been replaced through internal promotion.

The rest of your email seems to follow a strange piece of double think. At first you’re talking about contacting shareholders who are happy with GW’s practices, then talking about GW’s poor performance… which would surely produce unhappy shareholders.

You’re right that the statement isn’t meant for consumers, it’s meant to meet corporate disclosure regulations, providing the required information while assuring everyone that things are all travelling pretty well. Corporate disclosure requirements aren’t meant designed for industries like GW, which has the peculiar trait of consumers seeming to take a more active interest in the management of the company than shareholders do.

sebster wrote:

Hellfury wrote:

Pariah Press wrote: Just because Kirby says that they "share the same vision" in a press release, doesn't mean that they actually "share the same vision."

Likewise, it doesn't mean they don't either. Double negatives aside, it probably means what it says.

This is bad as Kirby isn't very popular among consumers who don't own stock. This shows that the statement isn't meant for consumers to read, but investors who were happy with Kirby's practices ( ) to feel all warm and fuzzy.

So the way I see it, associating Wells with Kirby's ideals is bad for both investors and consumers. Stocks have slumped under Kirby's management. He even admitted that most of the mistakes are due to poor management. Management starts at the very top.

I am non plussed by all of this. I don't really care though. There are plenty of better games on the block, so however GW chooses to hang themselves is of no concern to me.

The rest of your email seems to follow a strange piece of double think. At first you’re talking about contacting shareholders who are happy with GW’s practices, then talking about GW’s poor performance… which would surely produce unhappy shareholders.

I guess the laughing ork "emorkon" wasnt blatant enough to convey the sarcasm.

Stelek wrote:cause they always think I'm going to buy Eve Online or something...not actually go socialize and play miniature tabletop games.

The irony is that Eve has slowly become the example to go to on how to run an MMO that isn't based on a previously established IP. They've broken the 200k subscriber mark, with steady growth for 4 and a half years now. While it may not be uber-huge like WoW, it's turned them enough profit that they flat out bought White Wolf Publishing about a year ago. Still haven't heard much about the new MMO they are developing yet.

In fact, can't wait to get home and play. New expansion came out today, and it's a freakin huge one. Entirely new graphics engine debut, every texture and model in the game has been redone. And all the expansions are free!