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:

Meanwhile, BattleTech is - technically - on it's, what 7th Edition? 8th? I think they've changed two major rules in that time.

8th and technically we currently see the release of a 9th Edition

and no one is asking catalyst to do a full reboot/reset for 10th because by some wired magic the game still works

The new editions are nothing to do with rules or improving he game, it’s all marketing. GW are a company and that’s their marketing model. And guess what, it works. Are they the best games in the world, no. Do they make most money, yes. And that is what the share holders want.

Andykp wrote:
The new editions are nothing to do with rules or improving he game, it’s all marketing. GW are a company and that’s their marketing model. And guess what, it works. Are they the best games in the world, no. Do they make most money, yes. And that is what the share holders want.

In wargaming for sure. But in terms of the discussion of other stuff like Underworlds (which is an expandable board game), and the new Warhammer Quest games, they very much don't make the most money. It's a valid marketing model but it's not necessarily "the best".

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

This seems to be a fault in the groupthink of fantasy/sci fi gamers specifically. We've a solid historical element at our local club and they just don't think like this at all. They're often playing systems that are decades old, sometimes patched to suit their preferences, often not.

The concept that ongoing tinkering from some authority on high gives a game value can be quite restrictive, and it took the death of a game I was not remotely ready to stop playing to realise it.

This is very much also a generational thing. Millennials and younger lean heavily on authority figures for guidance. Whether you want to blame helicopter parents, the internet, or whatever, they are not used to working problems out without checking with the Higher Ups to see if it is okay.

My daughter is in art school and the topic of censorship came up and - I wish I were making this up - opposing censorship is now the minority view. Among artists. They want someone with authority to tell them what's okay for them to draw or make.

The notion of a community hashing out its own rules is entirely alien.

I'm not so sure. Millienials on Gen Z's are more likely to question authority, whilst older folk are more likely to go along with it.

I think it's skewed by the material available. Gamers older than maybe 30-ish came from a much more self sufficient space, where minis and games were detached and some element of DIY was necessary. It was actively encouraged too. I'm 40 and remember White Dwarf magazines that came with plans to scratchbuild vehicles they had rules for but not models, suggestions on mini games and the likes.

Now from the GW sphere it's very locked down - you get the official minis and the official rules and that's it.


But with historics in particular, where there's almost no link between rules and minis (except for perhaps Flames of War), home brew rules and modification is much more commonly accepted by the norm.

Then with older gamers favouring historics, I think it's likely just people who got into gaming via GW who found the game lacking and branched out to other parts of the hobby and got engrossed over there.
So it's not an age thing as such, more an experience/expectations thing.

And yeah, if I'm buying a rule book for $50+ and it's on it's 9th iteration from the biggest company in the industry, I expect it to be perfect. I don't expect to be seeing typos on the first page, or horrible balance.
I didn't mind it for the old rules from the 80's that were black and white typewriter photocopies with a color cover, but then they cost like $5 and were written and produced by some dude called Gerald in his shed so he could game the a very specific battle from the Napoleonic campaign.

deano2099 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The new editions are nothing to do with rules or improving he game, it’s all marketing. GW are a company and that’s their marketing model. And guess what, it works. Are they the best games in the world, no. Do they make most money, yes. And that is what the share holders want.

In wargaming for sure. But in terms of the discussion of other stuff like Underworlds (which is an expandable board game), and the new Warhammer Quest games, they very much don't make the most money. It's a valid marketing model but it's not necessarily "the best".

They clearly aren’t setting out to make the “best game”, but while the money is coming in they won’t be changing anytime soon.

 kodos wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Meanwhile, BattleTech is - technically - on it's, what 7th Edition? 8th? I think they've changed two major rules in that time.

8th and technically we currently see the release of a 9th Edition

and no one is asking catalyst to do a full reboot/reset for 10th because by some wired magic the game still works

Not a fan of Battletech, played it from time to time because it was what was out there. I haven't looked at it in 20 years, but I'm assuming the core mechanics are the same.

The remarkable thing about GW is how much they've modified 40k to the point that it's not really the same game. I mean, the stat lines have seen significant alteration as has the turn sequence. Though even older, Dungeons and Dragons still uses the same core stat lines, the iconic "hit points" and "armor class" etc. Indeed, last time I checked, the current version is a strong reversion to the system used during the 80s.

Of course, RPGs by definition are very individualized, but miniatures games should have some sort of consistency and commonality because there's only so many ways to conduct a firefight.

I bailed out when it became clear that all my 3rd ed. books were now going to be resold to me because GW had now decided on a 3-4 year product cycle and at the time I simply couldn't afford to keep buying books on that basis. Others are, which is a remarkable thing.

A lot of people want to know why someone would keep doing that, but my question is simply: where do you find the space to keep all those books?

Andykp wrote:

deano2099 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The new editions are nothing to do with rules or improving he game, it’s all marketing. GW are a company and that’s their marketing model. And guess what, it works. Are they the best games in the world, no. Do they make most money, yes. And that is what the share holders want.

In wargaming for sure. But in terms of the discussion of other stuff like Underworlds (which is an expandable board game), and the new Warhammer Quest games, they very much don't make the most money. It's a valid marketing model but it's not necessarily "the best".

They clearly aren’t setting out to make the “best game”, but while the money is coming in they won’t be changing anytime soon.

I agree but I think they're leaving money on the table. Their board game minis are the best in the business, the artwork and presentation is always strong... if they can build a dungeon crawler where the rules and content are on par with something like Gloomhaven or even Descent, it'll be the biggest game of its kind ever.

They seem not to care on the basis that the games sell anyway and even if the rules are bad, people will buy them for the minis. But the board game market is so huge right now they're leaving cash on the table.

Looking at Blood Bowl they have been very subtle with updating the team rosters so that existing/old teams (many of which had been catered for by 3rd party producers) have had their roster changed. So myself and fellow grognards who want to play with the new rules need to buy a few new minis or a new team. The same with the rule changes really, I could count on one hand the number of meaningful changes the new version has brought in (with some useless re-labelling, changing 'Go for it' to 'dash' for instance). Did it need a new version and rulebook? Absolutely not, it has done nothing to improve the game by any meaningful measure.

It has also just made league planners' lives a little bit harder as they have to go through removing the poorly thought out new changes (mercs for example), limiting start players, or having to make rulings on the new FAQ releases (because, again, it seems poorly thought out).

And all the time, you are just thinking through gritted teeth .. "leave... it... the ... feth.... alone" But, it's part of the business model, and you have to think it's actually in their interests to have imbalanced rules and a constant stream of new books and miniatures. You can keep on doing that because, by and large, at least in the sci-fi market they have a near monopoly.

deano2099 wrote:
...

But the board game market is so huge right now they're leaving cash on the table.

I'm not sure current day GW would be up to the task in terms of delivering a quality product similar to the examples you mentioned. While I agree that a portion of customers does buy these games for their miniatures, even if the games turn out to be unappealing, I suspect the majority is primarily looking for a good game, which is something GW tends to struggle with these days. This is the dividing line between wargamers and board gamers.

That being said, if GW were to start a Kickstarter campaign for a project of this scope, their unique position in terms of popularity and IP strength could allow them to set an unprecedented funding goal. With that, they could leave their conservative approach behind and go all out hiring the most expensive game devs, voice actors etc to deliver a high-end product.

If GW did a Space Marines Kickstarter Boardgame it could indeed possibly one of the highest funding KS model campaigns ever, quite easily.

At the same time I don't think GW would want to hand 10% of that income to KS just to be on KS. GW doesn't need the marketing KS brings to fund raise.

GW are also famous for not taking on debts and, in theory, a KS is a loan that you take out to produce a product. GW tends to prefer to operate with zero loan overhead and instead uses the money they generate to invest into future product lines.

 Pacific wrote:
Looking at Blood Bowl they have been very subtle with updating the team rosters so that existing/old teams (many of which had been catered for by 3rd party producers) have had their roster changed. So myself and fellow grognards who want to play with the new rules need to buy a few new minis or a new team. The same with the rule changes really, I could count on one hand the number of meaningful changes the new version has brought in (with some useless re-labelling, changing 'Go for it' to 'dash' for instance). Did it need a new version and rulebook? Absolutely not, it has done nothing to improve the game by any meaningful measure.

On paper, I quite like the idea of splitting Agility and Passing as stats, though I'll stress that I've not had the chance to play a game of the current edition.

They did manage to do the one thing I always want them to do in editions when they don't, though - made it crystal clear when you get to decide to use Mighty Blow. Always annoys me when they do an edition that doesn't say when you get to choose to use it, just because of the arguments it'll cause down the line...

 Overread wrote:
If GW did a Space Marines Kickstarter Boardgame it could indeed possibly one of the highest funding KS model campaigns ever, quite easily.

At the same time I don't think GW would want to hand 10% of that income to KS just to be on KS. GW doesn't need the marketing KS brings to fund raise.

GW are also famous for not taking on debts and, in theory, a KS is a loan that you take out to produce a product. GW tends to prefer to operate with zero loan overhead and instead uses the money they generate to invest into future product lines.

If they viewed this as an advertising opportunity, it could be really, really big.

A re-re-re-release of Space Hulk or Warhammer Quest (original style) would probably make the most money, but I could see it also as a test bed for their more esoteric boxed games like Man o' War or Epic.

Space Hulk would likely be the best option, as it is a perennial favorite, been around for decades, and is currently unavailable. Heck, they could even use the Space Marine Heroes 2 as new additions to the game.

So many possibilities there.

Even if they offered a straight reprint, it would make real money. And stretch goals? Just more plastic. They already own the relevant molds for the minis, so a couple of cents per frame per $50-$100K and watch the numbers rise.

Thing is GW can do a re-release through their own marketing channels, though their own website and sell it direct. Why pay Kickstarter 10% when GW will likely reach just as big a market on their own.


KS makes a lot of sense for smaller firms and those who need investment or which are taking a risk and want to mitigate that risk; or to get enough pre-orders gathered into make it affordable to make mass production orders with manufacturers.

GW doesn't need to do any of that. The own most of their own production; they've a very healthy income that gives them enough cash to invest into such a product and make the orders themselves. Heck they could even run a pre-order KS like campaign of their own with a bit of website development and the like.


GW can basically do it all in house and don't really benefit from what KS brings to the table.

 Pacific wrote:


And all the time, you are just thinking through gritted teeth .. "leave... it... the ... feth.... alone"

My thoughts exactly re: Blood Bowl. The game was in a very good state for 15 years after GW abandoned it. 2016 GW BB I didn't mind so much as they essentially copied/pasted the Living Rule Book that the BB community/fans had developed. 2020 GW BB got me worried with the "changes for the sake of change" mentality and starting up the GW rules churn treadmill a la 40k.

 Overread wrote:
Why pay Kickstarter 10% when GW will likely reach just as big a market on their own.

Because they can't. Kickstarter is several times as exposed as GW marketing, especially to board game crowds. It's more present in the "mainstream", if you will. I'm convinced that KS would be a net boon in that regard.

Then there is the fact that KS has an established and tested infrastructure for crowdfunding in place, while GW would have to build one from the ground up. Then again, WH+ has shown that they are not adverse to building new infrastructure to support new concepts.

Anyway, I'm sure they are well aware of that market and have considered these things internally.

deano2099 wrote:
I agree but I think they're leaving money on the table. Their board game minis are the best in the business, the artwork and presentation is always strong... if they can build a dungeon crawler where the rules and content are on par with something like Gloomhaven or even Descent, it'll be the biggest game of its kind ever.

Debatable. Their minis might be the best minis in boardgames, but they are not the best minis for boardgames. They are fiddlier, more fragile, and they need assembly, while for boardgames it's better to have tougher minis that come as ready to use as possible.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Prometheum5 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Why do I or my opponent need to tailor for our preferences of a fair game when the books are $60?

Why do we NEED GW to write the rules in general if we're just supposed to talk for half an hour?

I guess this is the fundamental divide in mentality. I don't mean this to come off as condescending, but what if you and your opponent took ownership of your game experience and agreed upon some tweaks to ensure you both get the most out of the time? Why is that not just a thing that people do before engaging in a substantial investment of time with each other? GW gave you a common set of minis, lore, and ruleset to get you together, but there's no law that you have to use every word of their books as written forever.

Take ownership via paying $100+ for rules and having to modify them?

Why don't my opponent just roll dice and go pewpew, and decide who wins via the higher dice roll and best pewpew noise?

Come on, answer honestly. You just precieve that because you pay at all (which I aren't convinced you do), they should be perfect and immaculate. That's not entirely devoid of merit, yes they should be function to a level you consider value.

Should the Votaan codex been released as is, yes or no?

Probably not, no. It would have been better to release it in the state its in now. Can you now answer the question instead of trying to deflect?

What question needs to be answered? That I don't buy GW rules because they're changed BY NECESSITY two weeks later and therefore invalidate their own printed material? Yeah you're right, I don't buy GW printed material, and I encourage other people to do the same.

That's why I pose the question regarding Votaan to you and how you, and others on the forum, did overall defend GW on what was clearly a lopsided release in terms of balance and quality. I do hope GW lost money on the Votaan release.

This is the question, you handily cut it out of your response:

To emphasise the question, if you have the rules, you and your opponents both dislike rule A, why can you not agree to not use rule A or to modify it to a manner more pleasing to you both?

And has nothing to do with Votann. You also mistaking it by seeing people ad defending the state of the Votann book, when many were defending the integrity of their defined process. They made changes completely blind as to how much impact they'd have due to a lack of data. I don't see you and your buddies decrying other releases that are broken in the same way.

Because it's more than Rule A. It's Rule A, B, and C. Those rules are connected to Rules D, E, and F in some manner.

If you agree that the Votaan codex shouldn't have been released as is, you should understand why saying "just ignore Rule A" doesn't actually work. It's also a matter of principle GW needs to write functional rules.

 BertBert wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Why pay Kickstarter 10% when GW will likely reach just as big a market on their own.

Because they can't. Kickstarter is several times as exposed as GW marketing, especially to board game crowds. It's more present in the "mainstream", if you will. I'm convinced that KS would be a net boon in that regard.

Eh I don't really know if it is.
KS doesn't really market for you at all. Yes you're on KS which adds a level of legitimacy to campaigns from very new or small/niche firms. However what marketing you actually get depends on what marketing you put into it on your own. I've seen great looking campaigns that failed to fund or only funded slightly because the company put almost no effort (or put poor/incorrect effort) into marketing. Meanwhile many of the biggest campaigns come with pre-loaded fanbases. Be it something like a firm or a known IP. Both are pre-loaded with fans.

Board games do have quite an established crowed on KS, but at the same time the boardgames I see doing really well tend to be

1) From firms that have run many campaigns before and built up a fanbase for themselves that has grown each time

2) From known/major IP franchises

3) From established firms in the BG market going into KS as a new outlet.

4) Firms that put a lot of money and time into pre-KS marketing campaigns.


Many that do well often have multiple videos with key youtube channels; attend big conventions with demo stalls; do demo games with online game playing systems and such.



Basically just appearing on KS alone does nothing because KS won't market for you. If GW went on KS you can bet they'd get a huge funding amount yes, but how many would be legitimately new customers and how many would simply be drawn in from their established customerbase. Furthermore any marketing they did for KS they could do for themselves on their own site. GW has a big established brand; they are a known firm and reliable. So its not as hard to convince people to sign up to their website and such.

 Gnarlly wrote:

 Pacific wrote:


And all the time, you are just thinking through gritted teeth .. "leave... it... the ... feth.... alone"

My thoughts exactly re: Blood Bowl. The game was in a very good state for 15 years after GW abandoned it. 2016 GW BB I didn't mind so much as they essentially copied/pasted the Living Rule Book that the BB community/fans had developed. 2020 GW BB got me worried with the "changes for the sake of change" mentality and starting up the GW rules churn treadmill a la 40k.

Agreed. The 2016 release was the first step on getting bb on the churn mill. Making Passing its own stat breaks down the monolith. New players won’t want to go back and veteran players now have a choice of playing only LRB/16 or updating. Leaving it alone meant money for third party folks. Now the rules and rescaled board/templates are things you have to get directly from the source. GW have reclaimed the drivers seat

 Overread wrote:
...

This might well be a misconception of mine, so please take it with a grain of salt, but from what I've seen and heard, Kickstarter projects are advertised on social media (that's in regular ads, while GW marketing seems to be restricted to followers of their channels).
It could be the actual developers advertising with KS branded material, but it's there and regularly appears in my ads feed.

Just appearing on KS might also help in the sense of exposure to people who already have a KS account (and receive recommendations, newsletters etc), especially those that already have backed similar campaigns in the past. To me that market is entirely separate from the GW core customer base and their marketing. Again, this might be selective/anecdotal perception on my part.

 BertBert wrote:

This might well be a misconception of mine, so please take it with a grain of salt, but from what I've seen and heard, Kickstarter projects are advertised on social media (that's in regular ads, while GW marketing seems to be restricted to followers of their channels).
It could be the actual developers advertising with KS branded material, but it's there and regularly appears in my ads feed.

It is in fact a misconception of yours. Next time you see one on Facebook, actually look at which page is posting it, I guarantee you it will be the company running the Kickstarter or an affiliated group/company. Kickstarter does no marketing or advertising beyond what's on their front page. As well, that's advertisement cultivated for you due to your browsing history and interests. My wife, for example, gets NO Kickstarter ads on her feed because there's nothing in their algorithm to feed her from Kickstarter, partly because she's never been on Kickstarter.

Yeah, KS doesn't do any extra "advertising" other than it showing up on their own page, really.

Also, there are several folks out there (myself included) who dislike seeing larger established companies (GW definitely falls in this category) use KS to launch a product. This is less common a feeling anymore, but there are definitely those that view it as "bad form," considering KS to be something for "smaller" companies to try to get things launched. CMON and Reaper have kinda shattered that, though, and routinely use it as a pre-order system.

I can't see GW really benefiting from doing something via KS. Sure, they might get a few more clicks from people randomly coming across it on their KS searches, but I don't think it'd be enough of a bump to justify the KS costs, frankly.

KS has evolved from its roots and diversified.


Heck in the 3D printing world quite a few now run a patreon for several months and then do a Kickstarter with those same models. It often does pretty well because you get all the people who found you through the Patreon late joining up to get models they missed out on. Plus hte marketing boost. Plus the fact that there's a good many who don't want a subscription system and prefer a one and done purchase.


I think the bad-taste of bigger firms using KS can still be valid, but personally I don't mind it. In my mind many of those big firms still might not have done those projects if they'd not had the KS to generate the income.
Even healthy firms sometimes need a cash injection to get the ball rolling which means either waiting a lot longer to save up (with the inevitable "disaster caused us to spend the money early" risk); or take on investors or take out loans - the latter two of which can end up being a bleed on a firm. I'd rather a firm owed its debt to KS customers in the form of a product than debt to an investor or loan

 Overread wrote:
KS has evolved from its roots and diversified.


Heck in the 3D printing world quite a few now run a patreon for several months and then do a Kickstarter with those same models. It often does pretty well because you get all the people who found you through the Patreon late joining up to get models they missed out on. Plus hte marketing boost. Plus the fact that there's a good many who don't want a subscription system and prefer a one and done purchase.


I think the bad-taste of bigger firms using KS can still be valid, but personally I don't mind it. In my mind many of those big firms still might not have done those projects if they'd not had the KS to generate the income.
Even healthy firms sometimes need a cash injection to get the ball rolling which means either waiting a lot longer to save up (with the inevitable "disaster caused us to spend the money early" risk); or take on investors or take out loans - the latter two of which can end up being a bleed on a firm. I'd rather a firm owed its debt to KS customers in the form of a product than debt to an investor or loan

Yeah, I'm mostly showing my old-pantsness. STL packages on Kickstarter are definitely a common thing now, and like I mentioned, CMON and Reaper (and several others) use it as a pre-order system, and the stigma against that has lessened a lot.

But, I still can't see GW gaining enough from the platform in terms of "extra reach" to justify giving them 10%.

 Pacific wrote:
Looking at Blood Bowl they have been very subtle with updating the team rosters so that existing/old teams (many of which had been catered for by 3rd party producers) have had their roster changed. So myself and fellow grognards who want to play with the new rules need to buy a few new minis or a new team. The same with the rule changes really, I could count on one hand the number of meaningful changes the new version has brought in (with some useless re-labelling, changing 'Go for it' to 'dash' for instance). Did it need a new version and rulebook? Absolutely not, it has done nothing to improve the game by any meaningful measure.

There was nothing "subtle" about the changes to the current edition of Blood Bowl. It was done specifically to break the community hold over the game, and make everyone reliant on GW again.

Blood Bowl is a game that did not need GW, and hadn't needed them for a very long time.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Meanwhile, BattleTech is - technically - on it's, what 7th Edition? 8th? I think they've changed two major rules in that time.

8th and technically we currently see the release of a 9th Edition

and no one is asking catalyst to do a full reboot/reset for 10th because by some wired magic the game still works

Not a fan of Battletech, played it from time to time because it was what was out there. I haven't looked at it in 20 years, but I'm assuming the core mechanics are the same.

The remarkable thing about GW is how much they've modified 40k to the point that it's not really the same game. I mean, the stat lines have seen significant alteration as has the turn sequence. Though even older, Dungeons and Dragons still uses the same core stat lines, the iconic "hit points" and "armor class" etc. Indeed, last time I checked, the current version is a strong reversion to the system used during the 80s.

Of course, RPGs by definition are very individualized, but miniatures games should have some sort of consistency and commonality because there's only so many ways to conduct a firefight.

I bailed out when it became clear that all my 3rd ed. books were now going to be resold to me because GW had now decided on a 3-4 year product cycle and at the time I simply couldn't afford to keep buying books on that basis. Others are, which is a remarkable thing.

A lot of people want to know why someone would keep doing that, but my question is simply: where do you find the space to keep all those books?

There is a lot wrong with Battletech, but the time to change it passed over 30 years ago. They could have redone the ruleset in the 80's but by now there is too much incumbency that the only way forward is to stay the same.
People as a result forgive its many flaws.

 Orlanth wrote:


There is a lot wrong with Battletech, but the time to change it passed over 30 years ago. They could have redone the ruleset in the 80's but by now there is too much incumbency that the only way forward is to stay the same.
People as a result forgive its many flaws.

Well, whatever you think those "many flaws" are, they don't seen to have hindered the game any. Or deterred it's many fans.

 Sacredroach wrote:

 Overread wrote:
If GW did a Space Marines Kickstarter Boardgame it could indeed possibly one of the highest funding KS model campaigns ever, quite easily.

At the same time I don't think GW would want to hand 10% of that income to KS just to be on KS. GW doesn't need the marketing KS brings to fund raise.

GW are also famous for not taking on debts and, in theory, a KS is a loan that you take out to produce a product. GW tends to prefer to operate with zero loan overhead and instead uses the money they generate to invest into future product lines.

If they viewed this as an advertising opportunity, it could be really, really big.

A re-re-re-release of Space Hulk or Warhammer Quest (original style) would probably make the most money, but I could see it also as a test bed for their more esoteric boxed games like Man o' War or Epic.

Space Hulk would likely be the best option, as it is a perennial favorite, been around for decades, and is currently unavailable. Heck, they could even use the Space Marine Heroes 2 as new additions to the game.

So many possibilities there.

Even if they offered a straight reprint, it would make real money. And stretch goals? Just more plastic. They already own the relevant molds for the minis, so a couple of cents per frame per $50-$100K and watch the numbers rise.

GW would never do this... They could never charge all countries the same amount for their product. People in their home country would not pay the inflated prices of USA, Canada, or AUS. And it would look really bad if europe didn't support it. And they would never lower the prices for those other countries to European prices. This is a never scenario.

I think people are missing the point with the KS discussion here. I think the point was that *if* GW were to do a KS for a large scale board game - eg. a scaled up Space Hulk or remake of the classic WHQ, it would do crazy numbers, more than enough to justify getting a high paid designers/rules writer or two. We know this to be the case because of other such products that have succeeded in this space.

The folks saying "Why would GW use KS? They could just fund it themselves and not lose 10%." are also completely correct. They could roll their own crowdfunding platform or just pay for it upfront and release it commercially. And be just as successful as on KS. Point being, it's a way of making a huge amount of money. The platform they do it on isn't relevant. The success of large scale, expensive, deluxe board games on KS just demonstrates the market exists.

deano2099 wrote:
I think people are missing the point with the KS discussion here. I think the point was that *if* GW were to do a KS for a large scale board game - eg. a scaled up Space Hulk or remake of the classic WHQ, it would do crazy numbers, more than enough to justify getting a high paid designers/rules writer or two. We know this to be the case because of other such products that have succeeded in this space.

The folks saying "Why would GW use KS? They could just fund it themselves and not lose 10%." are also completely correct. They could roll their own crowdfunding platform or just pay for it upfront and release it commercially. And be just as successful as on KS. Point being, it's a way of making a huge amount of money. The platform they do it on isn't relevant. The success of large scale, expensive, deluxe board games on KS just demonstrates the market exists.

Yeah, this is where I was originally going with this, but thanks anyway to all the people clearing up my misconception about all those KS ads. It seems all they do is provide or at least allow KS-branded material for campaigns on their platform.