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.

 Manchu wrote:
Zywus - the beer example was in fact not a false dichotomy; the point was to show how, in the sense some folks were using the word "competition," namely from the POV of a guy who had $X to spend on his lulz during Y period, the analysis is just too broad ... my first example, which I have actually continued to use, is Settlers of Catan - again the point is to show how there's really no reason to arbitrarily choose "miniatures game" (itself a arbitrary/debatable category) as the level of analysis as opposed to something slightly more general or slightly more specific; although my preference is for more specific (because I think that is more relevant to how customers actually behave when it comes to spending a relatively large amount of disposable income).

I realize that, but you're not communicating this very clearly.

What you're arguing over is really what arbitrary level of market equivalence two products need to have before you can say they are in competition.

If we for arguments sake (and using some made up numbers) presume that the market equivalence of CocaCola and Pepsi are 99% and the market equivalence of 40K and a case of Beer is 1% then we all agree that the market equivalence of X-Wing and 40K is somewhere in between; X%. The argument here is basically whether X% is enough to use the term "competition". Neither choice is really more arbitrary than the other I suppose but I'd say it's pretty clear that X-wing is more of a competition to 40K than most products on the market. I'd say it's even more of a competition than most miniature games on the market but that's more debatable I suppose.

 Zywus wrote:
I'd say it's even more of a competition than most miniature games on the market but that's more debatable I suppose.

That's actually the essence of the debate. Does a customer who wants a kit to assemble and paint go buy X-Wing? Probably not. But even if he does, it isn't to replace something like 40k, absent some external set of rather idiosyncratic circumstances (such as long-time grievance against GW) beyond the scope of the question.

But keep in mind this is just a tangent of a tangent - whether GW rescinded its license because X-Wing is successful.

 Manchu wrote:
We're just going to have to agree to disagree there. The notion that GW tried to leverage its license against the Star Wars license is probably the most absurd thing I have ever read on Dakka Dakka.

Yeah, it's almost as absurd as suing a company making conversion parts for your models (something that is legal by clear precedent) without even bothering to check if you even have documentation for your IP ownership claims and then, in the middle of the trial, trying desperately to get some artists so sign over their IP rights to you so your claims can be true after all. No real company would ever have that level of self-destructive narcissism.

Like I said, it takes a lot of GW hate ...

 Manchu wrote:
Zywus - the beer example was in fact not a false dichotomy; the point was to show how, in the sense some folks were using the word "competition," namely from the POV of a guy who had $X to spend on his lulz during Y period, the analysis is just too broad ... my first example, which I have actually continued to use, is Settlers of Catan - again the point is to show how there's really no reason to arbitrarily choose "miniatures game" (itself a arbitrary/debatable category) as the level of analysis as opposed to something slightly more general or slightly more specific; although my preference is for more specific (because I think that is more relevant to how customers actually behave when it comes to spending a relatively large amount of disposable income).

The reason to choose "miniatures game" instead of a game like Settlers of Catan is that "miniatures game" is a class of games that tend to share some specific rules concepts regardless of whether the miniatures are pre-painted or not. Miniatures games tend to be "simulation" type games where the action on the table is meant to accurately represent the real events, board games tend to have a lot more abstraction and often treat the fluff of the game as little more than an aesthetic theme. Miniatures games tend to involve each side customizing their forces by building an army from a pool of available units (and collecting the appropriate models), board games tend to have fixed rules for each side and little customization. Etc. So, X-Wing and 40k are both games that have a lot in common and their primary difference (pre-painted vs. kits) is something that happens off the table in preparing for the game, while 40k and Settlers of Catan have very little in common besides the fact that they're both games. That makes X-Wing very close competition that appeals to most of GW's target market for 40k, while Settlers of Catan is much more distant competition in the "both are luxury items for geeks" sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Does a customer who wants a kit to assemble and paint go buy X-Wing?

And you're still ignoring a very important question here: do GW's customers buy 40k kits because they want something to assemble and paint? If, for most GW customers, that is an important attribute then X-Wing is less of a competitor. If, for most GW customers, assembly and painting are just a means to an end and have little or no inherent appeal then pre-painted 40k its would sell just fine and X-Wing is direct competition. And the vast hordes of unpainted plastic, poorly treated models, etc, pretty clearly suggest that most GW customers don't care about the building and painting part of the hobby.

Edited by Manchu - Rule Number One is Be Polite

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
*snip*

IIRC though, Dust left FFG because of the massive ego of the owner / creator of the Dust setting and his general disgust at the direction FFG was taking it all in. Not that Dust is doing any better now, what with the disastrous venture between Dust and Battlefront, quite the thing.

Now, before people jump in with both feet, my comment was not meant as a slight against you, but rather the general mindset a lot of cupcakes have around here these days. Personally I am also of a more positive mindset with the recent advancements and improvements GW made, little by little. They still have ways to go, but let there be hope?

That said though, here's hoping that the RPG licence will find a new home with either another company competent enough at writing them (or better yet, understanding the rich background), or with, dare I dream it, a revived Black Industries branch, having excellent access to GW's resources without the restrictions put upon the company as a whole a by a certain recently retired keeper of the lore.

Just FYI I am not arguing that X-Wing is not a miniatures game. I just don't think that is very relevant. Just looking at the pre-assembled/pre-painted aspect, we are talking about dozens if not hundreds if not thousands of hours of completely different experiences between the two product lines. That is why the hobby game versus crossover game distinction is so crucial. It's honestly not a subtle point.

 Peregrine wrote:
do GW's customers buy 40k kits because they want something to assemble and paint?

Yes. As explained, assembly and painting are key parts of marketing this product. Whether the purchaser gets around to it is irrelevant.

 BrookM wrote:
They still have ways to go, but let there be hope?

Very true - but I also agree with your previous post that there are customers for whom it's too little too late (whether or not they are in fact still buying GW products and playing GW games). And these guys will always cast GW as the villain in their analysis. Not a few such folks post here.

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Does a customer who wants a kit to assemble and paint go buy X-Wing?

And you're still ignoring a very important question here: do GW's customers buy 40k kits because they want something to assemble and paint? If, for most GW customers, that is an important attribute then X-Wing is less of a competitor. If, for most GW customers, assembly and painting are just a means to an end and have little or no inherent appeal then pre-painted 40k its would sell just fine and X-Wing is direct competition. And the vast hordes of unpainted plastic, poorly treated models, etc, pretty clearly suggest that most GW customers don't care about the building and painting part of the hobby.

Edited by Manchu - Rule Number One is Be Polite

I wouldn't say people with unpainted stuff don't care about building or painting don't care about that portion of the hobby. Often times they are simply intimidated by it. I Enjoy assembling much more than painting some people probably leave their stuff grey because they feel like they can't accomplish anything with a brush. The opposite argument which GW has tried to put forth for ages is that their primary demographic is hobbyists and not gamers, which is a laughable assertion. There might be a lot of people who model only, but only a handful are ever going to buy a full army verse seeing a few models they like for a diorama or project.

I would even wager that significantly more people became hobbyists because of the existence of the table top game. However, the two don't have to be mutually exclusive. Just because I like building and painting doesn't mean I also don't like gaming or vice versa.

X-Wing is a direct competitor to 40k for that reason. A single aspect of the hobby is missing or different just means a small portion of people won't buy in. The majority still have a stake. In fact for me with X-Wing the way it does things 40k doesn't is what made me pick the game up. it was cheap, easy to learn, solid rule set, and I didn't have to buy and paint a crap ton of stuff, which is the biggest hurdle towards starting a new game. In many way sit fit all the niche spots 40k was really weak at. With 40k being so expensive, a lot of people usually only commit to it and maybe one other game. X-Wings accessibility made it really easy to get into as a fun filler game at first, then buy more because you enjoyed it. For me it didn't replace 40k, (dropzone and bolt action did) but those were dollars I spent somewhere else at a time when I was a loyal GW fan.

I am willing to bet that was one of the main contributing factors to that games wild success. .

If assembly and painting are supposed to be so vitally important reasons as to why people buy GW products, then why is there an entire side industry (commission painters) dedicated to doing that for you? Clearly, the hobby aspect is completely negligible to a large enough group of customers in order to support this side industry.

I don't think commission painting is all that huge of a market. (The fact that it exists probably says more about the infrastructure that allows for 21st-century cottage industries more widely.) But even so, the customizability of the product is still at issue even where the customer is paying someone else to assemble and paint the miniatures.

 BrookM wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
*snip*

IIRC though, Dust left FFG because of the massive ego of the owner / creator of the Dust setting and his general disgust at the direction FFG was taking it all in. Not that Dust is doing any better now, what with the disastrous venture between Dust and Battlefront, quite the thing.

Now, before people jump in with both feet, my comment was not meant as a slight against you, but rather the general mindset a lot of cupcakes have around here these days. Personally I am also of a more positive mindset with the recent advancements and improvements GW made, little by little. They still have ways to go, but let there be hope?

Yes, I get that, what I was saying was that DUST's existence as a FFG venture previously, does sort of put pay to the idea being held as truth about these here parts that GW was the one who terminated the contract due to FFG venturing into miniature based wargaming.

DUST was, if anything, far more of a directly competing tabletop game to GW's products than X Wing and if GW didn't pitch a fit over that game, it seems highly unlikely they did over XWing, GW didn't lose it over DUST, as you said, the game creator was an 'artiste' who threw some sort of epic tantrum and self detonated.

I'm not sure if GW would view RPGs as worthwhile cost effective ventures tbh. Perhaps a print on demand system? Electronic purchase PDFs only?

I very much doubt GW even knew what Dust was about. Or maybe they did, but are having a hearty laugh about how well it appears to be doing these days.

Shame really, as under the FFG label is showed quite some potential, especially the rules penned by Andy Chambers.

Setting aside the "argument" that GW is absolutely terrible and does everything incorrectly all the time, I feel pretty confident that GW knew about DUST and DUST Tactics. Whether they cared ... that's the issue, isn't it? At least constructively, they did not. And yes, DUST was closer to the bone for GW than X-Wing, at least along the lines of the arguments that X-Wing is a major competitor to 40k. The prospective counter-argument is that DUST was never as successful as X-Wing. But here again we run into the issue of GW withdrawing its license having zero impact on the success of X-Wing and FFG. But, again, I'd argue it does have a potentially negative impact on GW. I don't think GW is competent to develop and support the kind of products FFG excels at developing and supporting. I suppose, with some major "turning the aircraft carrier" type changes, they could get there. But that does not seem to be the trajectory.

 Manchu wrote:
Zywus - the beer example was in fact not a false dichotomy; the point was to show how, in the sense some folks were using the word "competition," namely from the POV of a guy who had $X to spend on his lulz during Y period, the analysis is just too broad ... my first example, which I have actually continued to use, is Settlers of Catan - again the point is to show how there's really no reason to arbitrarily choose "miniatures game" (itself a arbitrary/debatable category) as the level of analysis as opposed to something slightly more general or slightly more specific; although my preference is for more specific (because I think that is more relevant to how customers actually behave when it comes to spending a relatively large amount of disposable income).

It's not an arbitrary distinction but rather an industry standard one to lump miniatures games together in the same category for a multitude of reasons. It's not arbitrary, farcical, or any other pejorative term you may have used that I missed. You seem to bristle at the similarities but no one else in the thread seemingly does... and neither does the Warstore, Miniature Market, or Wayland who put x-wing together with other miniature wargames just like they would 40k (but not actually 40k thanks to GW TOS)... and yet put Settlers of Catan in a different category. In your 40k Pepsi vs Warpath Coke competition example, X-Wing would be Sprite or Snapple at worst which does compete in the category of drinks thirsty people may buy despite being somewhat different; despite the differences, they are not equivalent to a burger (your 6 pack counterexample) or Catan's milkshake. There is a wide space between being overly pedantic and overly broad to the point of losing nuance that you're ignoring. I won't repeat myself with your "Coralla vs Accord" example as I hope you see where most everyone else is coming from when disagreeing with you in the thread.

In any case, has this derailing train of thought gone on long enough? It's no more or less pertinent to this thread than the cost of entry subtopic you shut down and this one seems like it has choochoo'ed along even further off the rails.

If you think the tangent is derailing the discussion, why are you continuing to discuss it? Krinsath, myself, and others have retraced this line of discussion back to the larger issue of the relationship between FFG and GW. See my post immediately above yours. And the posts immediately above those. If you don't want to talk about the X-Wing v 40k competition issue any longer then by all means don't. Since you do - online stores, just like a forum, can only have so many categories before the "organization" is no longer helpful. X-Wing is a crossover product but sure it has more in common with WMH than Settlers of Catan for Miniature Market's purposes. This has never been at issue ITT.

Yep, and it all began with a dude posting about how he helped FFG screw over GW in a heroic manner that was page 9? 11?

They may not be direct competitors, but I have been full into playing 40k since I was 12, and I am now 34. X-Wing and now Armada are in direct competition for my dollars versus modern GW.

I bought 50 dollars of secondhand Skaven models from the big Toledo bitz guy at Gencon this year, and it's not even to play GW products (Song of Blades and Heroes; assorted other personal projects). I waited all year to make that bitz purchase, as searching through his booth is my favorite thing to do at Gencon, and I kept myself to a budget of under 75 dollars, and that was on something expected.

Then a month later, I made a snap splurge of over $150 to get into Star Wars Armada after hearing of the big sale over at MiniatureMarket, which made the game much more palatable at 40% off.

I've spent a lot more than I would like to calculate on X-Wing. But I still buy stuff from GW (LotR and some AoS, not 40k any more and probably never again until/if they meaningfully update Sisters and/or "AoSify" 40k). I have bought stuff from GW a lot more recently than from X-Wing; doesn't mean I am done with X-Wing by any means. In fact, with Rogue One coming up I can foresee those dollars flying away to FFG again soon.

All of the arguing is a bit pointless, because most people discuss the same object, but from a different angle with sprinkles of snark and GW hatred along the way.

In other words: both statements are true
1) even beer is a competitor to 40k, because it falls in the market of non vital products, and every time a person buys himself something for pleasure, rather than need, he doesn't spend said money on x-wing or 40k.
And x-wing and 40k are too damn different, from hobbying to rules through setting

Economy is science teaching us about choice!

2) BUT AT THE SAME TIME x-Wing is a relatively close competitor, because there are people who are interested in BOTH, and they have are harder time to choose: do I buy more of that or this, because are wishes are Unlimited, but hobby piggybank and funds for other luxuries are.

You're combining different social groups into one, that's why you can't meet half way.


You're basically saying, that it's grey, and the other one argues, that it's big.

Both sides are right in a way, it's a an elephant.

Well, as I approach it, X-Wing and Armada occupy exactly the same amount of my hobby budget, time, and effort, as I model and/or repaint nearly all of my X-Wing ships, and at least the cruisers for Armada.

And my takeaway from the split is that unless something drastic changes, GW can not produce the stuff that FFG did for their universes. The closest GW got to an in-house RPG was Inquisitor, way back when- and even then they botched it by making it completely incompatable (as marketed, anyway) with their 40k product lines, when any idiot knew it would have done better when (officially) tied in to 28mm 40k, because that's what huge amounts of players did on their own- likely why the 50mm line failed.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Well, as I approach it, X-Wing and Armada occupy exactly the same amount of my hobby budget, time, and effort, as I model and/or repaint nearly all of my X-Wing ships, and at least the cruisers for Armada.

And my takeaway from the split is that unless something drastic changes, GW can not produce the stuff that FFG did for their universes. The closest GW got to an in-house RPG was Inquisitor, way back when- and even then they botched it by making it completely incompatable (as marketed, anyway) with their 40k product lines, when any idiot knew it would have done better when (officially) tied in to 28mm 40k, because that's what huge amounts of players did on their own- likely why the 50mm line failed.

Well strictly speaking (albeit not 40K) GW did produce an RPG in WFRP.

It is too long ago and I'm too casual a role player to say it was any good, but they have produced an in-house RPG well supported with a lot of expansions.

The first print run of Dark Heresy was by Black Library. (I am not sure who published WHRP 1E.) But I don't disagree with you - BL seems like a vastly different business nowadays. And I doubt GW licensed DH to FFG just for the distribution. HBMC may be able to speak more to this.

Just a reminder, GW doesn't see X-Wing as competition. It's been reported by one investment journalist that is linked here frequently that GW's thinks it's primary customers are modelers and painters. So why worry about a product that appeals very little to those types of people. We can argue the reality of that, but that is GW's view and that was the view they likely had when negotiating a new license.

What likely happened is GW wanted more for it's IP and/or FFG wanted to pay less for it. They couldn't reach an agreement and thus the license came to an end.

If you want to read into that, Chris Petersen of FFG has always said he was a huge fan of GW's IP. He likely agreed to pay a premium for the license at the time originally. With FFG owned by Asmodee now, negotiations was likely handled by Asmodee corporate. They likely didn't have the same affection for the GW IP and likely wanted to pay significantly less than what was agreed to before.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Yes, I get that, what I was saying was that DUST's existence as a FFG venture previously, does sort of put pay to the idea being held as truth about these here parts that GW was the one who terminated the contract due to FFG venturing into miniature based wargaming.

DUST was, if anything, far more of a directly competing tabletop game to GW's products than X Wing and if GW didn't pitch a fit over that game, it seems highly unlikely they did over XWing, GW didn't lose it over DUST, as you said, the game creator was an 'artiste' who threw some sort of epic tantrum and self detonated.

A lot of "maybe" here: Runewars fits the description of a tabletop wargame while the other two cased could skirt the issue somehow. It would depend on how the contract is worded. Maybe GW couldn't easily void the contract in these cases (without paying for an early termination)? Maybe FFG were technically just a distributor for Dust as it was not their creation, and for X-Wing, maybe (from how it was written in the contract) it counts as a board game as you don't get sprues, and can play directly out of the box (so to speak).

So maybe GW didn't like Dust and X-Wing but couldn't do much because of technicalities. Runewars could be a result of FFG seeing the end of their licensing deal and thinking they could grab a chunk of that market once the license (with its restrictions) is gone. But I know neither timeline nor details so it's all just a bit of speculation.

 Manchu wrote:
Pepsi versus Coke is a great example of direct competition.

X-Wing versus 40k is not.

The reason is because Pepsi and Coke are market equivalents.

X-Wing and 40k are not.

I'd like to hear more on this reasoning why you feel X-Wing and 40K do not compete against each other, as I feel they do because there have been cases where I passed on 40K purchases to get X-Wing or Armada ships instead.

 Manchu wrote:
I am not sure who published WHRP 1E.

Initially GW themselves, then some GW spin-off company, then Hogshead Publishing. Second Edition was done by Black Industries and I believe they outsourced the clean up of the rules to another company.

 Stormonu wrote:
I'd like to hear more on this reasoning why you feel X-Wing and 40K do not compete against each other, as I feel they do because there have been cases where I passed on 40K purchases to get X-Wing or Armada ships instead.

Sure, let me ask you, have you ever passed up buying a video game to get X-Wing or Armada ships? I have. How any of us define our discretionary spending budget, so to speak, is not the issue.

Storm on it is very simple. One is a tabletop wargame, the other is known as a collectable miniature game (cmg).

Xwing is in the family of mage knight, mechwarrior, dust premium, star wars minis, dungeons and dragons, etc. All are pretty good games, and though the minis can be customized and painted, they are prepainted and preassembled. They are also more or less expanded boardgames (less limits).

40k is a wargame (40k, warhammer, aos, wwx, bolt, etc). These are larger scale games that use large tables... thus the wargame game type. This also means that the minis are not assembled, not painted, and require a larger time investment and creativity to be able to play.

Apples and oranges, both games but completely different and marketed to different folks.

 silent25 wrote:
He likely agreed to pay a premium for the license at the time originally.

The license was probably a much bigger deal to the FFG of those days than the FFG of these days. Speaking of which ...

Mario wrote:
Runewars could be a result of FFG seeing the end of their licensing deal and thinking they could grab a chunk of that market once the license (with its restrictions) is gone.

Along the lines MGS mentioned above, I don't think the GW license figures quite so prominently in FFG's plans as it does in the minds of your typical Dakka Dakka posters. RuneWars is big news because it indicates FFG has the capital, expertise, and market position to launch a miniatures game using an in-house IP.

 455_PWR wrote:
One is a tabletop wargame, the other is known as a collectable miniature game (cmg).

I agree with your analysis otherwise but IIRC "collectible" is a trade term for blind buy (as in "CCG"). In terms of marketing, X-Wing shares a lot in common with the games you mentioned - but that blind buy thing is a huge, huge difference. Additionally, the quality of the sculpts and paint jobs is markedly better than all the blind buy mini games I've seen. That's why I think of X-Wing as a crossover product. No doubt the main reasons for X-Wing's success are (1) the SW IP, (2) the mainstream distribution, (3) the quality of the components and rules - but like (9) or (10) is probably that it serves a market underserved by traditional miniatures wargaming products. I think that is a far less important reason because I don't think X-Wing really owes its success to people who also play hobby-premised miniatures games or would want to (quite the reverse).

Hmmm, I guess I just don't get your level of differentiation. I would have lumped all those games together, regardless of the need to assemble and paint.

Perhaps it is in that my interest is in when it hits the table/have the finished product in my hand, not so much in the assembly and paint portion - for me, that's a "necessary evil".