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.

I think if done right it could be a huge success, Magic the Gathering made Magic Online and it hasn't split the community and automatically tell of people play using both systems.

Also I read where some on here said zooming in to check line of site would be a pain. It actually wouldn't as the game would
automatically tell you about cover, LOS, and any buffs or debuff.

I really don't understand the attitude of people that suggest "it should remain a tabletop hobby only". Just like dawn of war, a true to tabletop would only bring MORE people interested in the universe/fluff into the hobby, making getting games easier. How is that bad?

 techsoldaten wrote:
Well, that's one way of looking at it. Except that they don't really need to make a capital investment to build video games, they need to license some rights and let someone build it for them while they rake in the money. There's nothing conservative about avoiding emerging markets. The bigger risk lies in missing an opportunity.

Legal advice still costs money, and I guess the owners would like to know exactly how much they're likely to rake in. Lending your IP is also a risk in another sense - if a developer gets a license for, let's say ten years, and can't manage to do anything with it that's ten years wasted. You see that with film studios and video game companies all the time. Someone once got the rights and then they proceed to do absolutely nothing with them, maybe just to spite another willing producer or in some cases the guy who owns the rights (but licensed them). GW needs to make the developer want to push the project through - and developers don't want to be forced either so closing a deal is not usually quite as easy as just "licensing".

But they have done video games. And they've expanded from what they used to be - in the beginning it was a single rulebook and a few model kits, everything else you had to scrounge up on your own. Now they have store chains and sell everything you need (and a lot you don't) for modelling their kits. They have followed the times to digital releases, and they have a website with online store.

Going beyond their "core functions" though, that's something much much bigger companies are often unwilling to do. Corporation mergers often see the new entity selling off minor functions that they feel no longer fit in their portfolio, even if it brings in money. They just think it's major extra hassle for minor gain.

Silenoz wrote:
I think if done right it could be a huge success, Magic the Gathering made Magic Online and it hasn't split the community and automatically tell of people play using both systems.

Don't forget the games that go with the Core Sets (Magic 2013 and its predecessors), they come with coupons for limited edition cards for both MtG and MGO, tell you which sets are going to appear next and try to get you involved with their fluff.

WotC pretty much managed to sell advertisement for $20.

M:tG has gone downhill since Mirrodin block.

MtG isn't going up or downhill anymore than it always has. The power creep just has become more obvious when comparing cards across two decades.

 Necrosis wrote:
The dawn of war games are actually what got me and a bunch of my friends into the hobby.

Pretty much this.

It did not spark it off, but it was a huge factor.

 Jidmah wrote:
MtG isn't going up or downhill anymore than it always has. The power creep just has become more obvious when comparing cards across two decades.

You mean the inverse power creep, right? The power in new MTG sets is significantly less than in old sets, it's just distributed differently. Instead of a handful of overpowered cards, most of them spells, there's a larger number of consistently good cards, many of them creatures. There only appears to be power creep because creatures were weak for most of MTG's early years, so making them balanced is going to inevitably mean printing creatures that are just plain better than older ones.

GW doesn't so much do logical power creep as 'randomly make some codices bad ass and others randomly garbage".

Meqs are the new whipping boy, so expect the SW and BA to suck as well compared to Orks and Nids.

 Orock wrote:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/409030043/warmachine-tactics?ref=card

A true to tabletop version of warmachines. For 15 years, GW has cried and bemoaned that an online true to tabletop version of their game would split their fanbase, and be the end of them. But here, a much smaller company dosent seem worried that it will kill their tabletop game. In fact, it seems as they are betting this will be a huge boon for them.

GW could have true to tabletop versions of both of their games, they don't out of misplaced paranoia. I guess on the bright side, if this game becomes a huge success, GW will likely follow suit. Imagine being able to sit down and get a game in anytime you want, without having to rely on a friend being available to play, or having to drive 30+ minutes and hope there is someone looking for the same thing at the same time.

As AegisGrimm pointed out, GW did pretty much the same in 1998: Chaos Gate was really close to the tabletop (at the moment).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adFYEDuNd18&list=PL45EE649694AB7B40

Also Space Hulk was released in 2013. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SpVEhrGABA
It is as true to the tabletop game as possible.

And Dawn of War, while not exactly the same game, was (imho) the best game I ever played. I still play it a lot, mostly mods.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I would buy every single one of the old 95/98 GW computer games if they were updated to run on modern operating systems. Chaos Gate, Final Liberation, (I can;t remember the names of the RTS Warhammer games). I'd be a happy man. Believe it or not, there were good GW computer games before Dawn of War. (...)

I don´t know if you know it, but Chaos Gate works fine in Windows 7. I played the last week.

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
M:tG has gone downhill since Mirrodin block 5th Edition.

Just a quick fix...

Anyway, regarding GW and video games: it's not as simple as people think. Making a good computer game these days with up-to-date graphics and UI and whatnot is very expensive. There are not that many studios left willing to take risks, when they can keep cranking out estabilished titles. It has become lot like Hollywood movie industry, where they nowadays just crank out remakes and reboots since they're safe.

And it's not like GW has not attempted to "catch up with times". They have licensed out turn-based games, FPS's, RTS's, MMO's all based on their IP...success has been mixed, but what has been noteworthy is that none of them have set the world on fire and jumpstarted GW hobby and business to the next level. In fact, they've had very limited impact.

So I am left sorta struggling here, what exactly GW supposedly could do more to use video games to promote the hobby? It seems to me they have tried nearly everything, only thing which seems to be missing is turn-based strategy game based on their core games, and given the precedent, it's hardly a guarantee that it would become a massive success.

Computer game industry is hard to forecast. Many hugely hyped, expensively produced games flopped completely. On the other hand, one of the most popular games of all time was programmed by some Russians in their spare time and had just blocks and pieces. Or who could have foreseen that a game from an obscure company featuring some stupid birds would get a billion downloads?

Backfire wrote:

 Tyberos the Red Wake wrote:
M:tG has gone downhill since Mirrodin block 5th Edition.

So I am left sorta struggling here, what exactly GW supposedly could do more to use video games to promote the hobby? It seems to me they have tried nearly everything, only thing which seems to be missing is turn-based strategy game based on their core games, and given the precedent, it's hardly a guarantee that it would become a massive success.

Actually, due to the success of XCOM, it may be possible to make a Warhammer 40k TBT game after all. All they need is to find a competent company (like Firaxis) to remake Chaos Gate (or Necromunda), and they should get quite a boost.

Backfire wrote:
And it's not like GW has not attempted to "catch up with times". They have licensed out turn-based games, FPS's, RTS's, MMO's all based on their IP...success has been mixed, but what has been noteworthy is that none of them have set the world on fire and jumpstarted GW hobby and business to the next level. In fact, they've had very limited impact.

On the other hand, how many of those games have really been marketed properly? Only the DoW games, which were reasonably successful. The GW business model for licensing out games seems to be "hand over the IP, and forget about it". So is it really any surprise that a generic FPS with little or no marketing fails to find an audience?

So I am left sorta struggling here, what exactly GW supposedly could do more to use video games to promote the hobby?

GW needs to use those games. Every game should include "so you loved the video game? Play the tabletop game!" marketing. Every game should be advertised to GW's existing customers. And both the video games and the tabletop games should be advertised conventionally. Instead, GW's attitude seems to be "give them permission and then forget about it". They're content to passively collect their license fees and never even consider the opportunities a successful video game has to offer.

They put coupons which could get you limited edition models or units . If the only way to get a saber weapon platform would be to buy a copy of IG centered DoW , Ig players would buy 6-9 copies.
Same with marines . Normal sternguard in the codex and buyable with cash , and deathwatch sternguard sold only if you have a coupon from buying a DoW deathwatch centered game.

I would, if it existed, totally play a turn-based PC 40k game if I could use CSM rules and run the same things I can run now.

In fact, I would prefer it because now that I have a toddler I can't always get games in at the store like I used to.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
MtG isn't going up or downhill anymore than it always has. The power creep just has become more obvious when comparing cards across two decades.

You mean the inverse power creep, right? The power in new MTG sets is significantly less than in old sets, it's just distributed differently. Instead of a handful of overpowered cards, most of them spells, there's a larger number of consistently good cards, many of them creatures. There only appears to be power creep because creatures were weak for most of MTG's early years, so making them balanced is going to inevitably mean printing creatures that are just plain better than older ones.

Well, there are less bombs which define an entire block, but that isn't exactly what makes a good game. Despite what nostalgic people say, playing during the Urza Block, undoubtedly the most powerful block ever, was no fun. Between anything but those bombs being worthless pieces of cardboard and tournaments lasting half an hour for sixteen attendants, too much power just isn't that awesome, especially when concentrated on a fraction of the entire set.

But that isn't what I meant. There are cards coming out right now which completely invalidate good and solid cards from the mirrodin area or earlier. By invalidate I mean being better than the old card in every aspect, no strings attached. When I look through my collection, some of the top-tier cards of their time have become useless, because there have been two or even three reprints with less mana costs, additional abilities or simply more power/toughness. You're right, it's mostly creatures due to WotC actively pushing the game in that direction, but not exclusively so. Just have a look at three mana-artifacts producing a single mana, something that's pretty irrelevant to competitive play.
The first one took two mana to activate, netting a loss of mana for color. The next one did the same without any loss of mana, or adding a colorless one for free. Next were some which produced single colors for free, then some which produced two colors. Starting with darksteel ignot the artifacts had the ability to produce any color of mana, as well as a minor ability, or a limited amount of colors and a major ability. Right now we arrived at a point where this type of artifact produces any type of mana and has a relevant major ability for free - which is leagues better than its ancestors twenty years ago. The same is true about dozens of cards. Remember when WotC axed lightning bolt from the core sets because it was too efficient?
It becomes blatantly obvious when playing casual games across all editions. Some of my most powerful decks of the past fail to beat average strength decks consisting of newer cards. Doesn't apply to combo decks, of course, I it killed your opponent in the past it still kills him today. However, powerful archetypes from the pre-Mirrodin area, like mono blue control, green stompy, beast tribals, astral slide or squirrel opposition simply don't work anymore - what made them good back then is below average right now.

Top-tier tournament cards of the past have become fourth of fifth choices behind newer ones, cards worth $50 or more in the past have crashed to a few cents. Not that I'm complaining, I'm happy to finally afford those cards

 techsoldaten wrote:

Didn't they miss the boat when Blizzard came to them looking to build a games franchise based on their IP? Blizzard Entertainment has a huge market cap right now, a lot larger than GW.

This precisely. Hadn't they pissed of Blizzard, they would be running the most known tabletop wargame AND have the rights to the RTS that was the golden standard of the genre for over a decade. Now they are stuck with relic who have very limited capabilities to do proper work. Their games are constantly plagued by horrible bugs and awfull ballance, lack proper servers for network gaming...

Basically the only thing relic does pretty good is game design and model animation/voicing. Which doesn't help you all that much when your target community is playing starcraft because they don't have to put up with fickle p2p-networks, get an actually ballanced game which even runs on the rig without major voodoo in your config files and harware upgrades.

 Kosake wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

Didn't they miss the boat when Blizzard came to them looking to build a games franchise based on their IP? Blizzard Entertainment has a huge market cap right now, a lot larger than GW.

This precisely. Hadn't they pissed of Blizzard, they would be running the most known tabletop wargame AND have the rights to the RTS that was the golden standard of the genre for over a decade. Now they are stuck with relic who have very limited capabilities to do proper work. Their games are constantly plagued by horrible bugs and awfull ballance, lack proper servers for network gaming...

Basically the only thing relic does pretty good is game design and model animation/voicing. Which doesn't help you all that much when your target community is playing starcraft because they don't have to put up with fickle p2p-networks, get an actually ballanced game which even runs on the rig without major voodoo in your config files and harware upgrades.

And that's simply the RTS. Space Marine was pretty much a collassal failure on Relic's part with the net coding being utterly broken with poorly implemented peer-to-peer matchmaking and hosting that somehow manages to be worse than current console games using the same system. It's a decent game in that the singleplayer is fine, but the multiplayer is simply broken, more so than DOW's.