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.

Why?

I just want to know, genuinely, what are the advantages/benefits for GW (sales/marketing/branding...) of calling the new ed of warhammer "The Old World" and say it is a new game, instead of just the next edition (like they do in 40K, why don't they follow the same way of their biggesst game?).

Same for Legions Imperialis instead of Epic 5th.

Does doing that absurd thing really increase sales? (I guess that's the ultimate goal, have good/better sales?). Naming it ToW would sell better than naming it WHFB 9th? Would naming it Epic 5th sale less than naming it LI??

Or would it not affect sales and they just do it for "pride"??

That's an interesting question. Its possible it's to create a distinct brand/ring-fence around each one; if they had called it Warhammer Fantasy Battle.. well isn't Age of Sigmar that now? And the Old World (I would have preferred 'Exploded World but there we go!) sets it as something different to the current edibles-induced timeline I guess..?
And Legions does have the word Epic on the front cover of the rulebook. It's what my gaming friends and I are calling it (rather than having to say 'Legions Imperialis' each time you refer to the game), so I suspect that is how it will be known informally.

Branding is important and depending on who much value the brand has it is worth keeping it or not

"Warhammer" is by now the generic GW brand and not dedicated to a specific game

Calling it Warhammer Fantasy Battles 9th Edition, would mean the games name is "Fantasy Battles", which first of all very generic, you won't get a copyright or trademark for it, and already heavily used by others

So it needs a new name dedicated to that game. The Old World makes sense on context of being a setting in that part of the map and as ancient times of the AoS setting

Same for LI, "Epic" is a very generic brand by now and having an Epic Games Store, Epic Battles and Epic Scale around and used by others, you want to have something recognisable as a Warhammer branded game name
hence Warhammer: Legions Imperialis, rather than Warhammer: Epic 30k/HH

I think it does have a negative impact on total newbies if something is the 9th version of itself. It sort of implies a lot of history and other information that you don't know, and could be offputting.

Not including the edition is a way of reducing that baggage and making the game more "welcoming" to new people.

I think that's the logic, anyway. You see it in other "lifestyle" games with the model of releasing new editions for money like Dungeons and Dragons, where they want to call it "OneD&D" rather than D&D 6th edition or whatever.

Like, when I think about 40K being on it's 10th edition since I started, it really just makes me feel quite tired tbh!

 kodos wrote:
Branding is important and depending on who much value the brand has it is worth keeping it or not

"Warhammer" is by now the generic GW brand and not dedicated to a specific game

Calling it Warhammer Fantasy Battles 9th Edition, would mean the games name is "Fantasy Battles", which first of all very generic, you won't get a copyright or trademark for it, and already heavily used by others

So it needs a new name dedicated to that game. The Old World makes sense on context of being a setting in that part of the map and as ancient times of the AoS setting

Same for LI, "Epic" is a very generic brand by now and having an Epic Games Store, Epic Battles and Epic Scale around and used by others, you want to have something recognisable as a Warhammer branded game name
hence Warhammer: Legions Imperialis, rather than Warhammer: Epic 30k/HH

So briefly, the reason is to have a very strong branding? because WHFB is too generic?

That helps with sales? and with protecting the product?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
I think it does have a negative impact on total newbies if something is the 9th version of itself. It sort of implies a lot of history and other information that you don't know, and could be offputting.

Not including the edition is a way of reducing that baggage and making the game more "welcoming" to new people.

I think that's the logic, anyway. You see it in other "lifestyle" games with the model of releasing new editions for money like Dungeons and Dragons, where they want to call it "OneD&D" rather than D&D 6th edition or whatever.

Like, when I think about 40K being on it's 10th edition since I started, it really just makes me feel quite tired tbh!

Why is it negative in WH Fantasy, but not in WH 40K then ???????

WH 40K doesn't seem hurt by the fact they go edition after edition. 10th now, right?

It’s worth noting that the Legions Imperialis boxes have “Epic” as what looks to be a sub-brand, explaining the scale of the models.

My guess is this leaves it open to expansion into the modern setting.

Does GW actually note the editions of their games anywhere? Epic never did and didn't include the tag 'Epic' until its third iteration (the first two being called AT and SM twice over).

Legions Imperialis is barely compatible with previous versions of Epic due to the change in scale and reduction of factions.

SU-152: Honestly not sure why they keep 40K on the edition train, it's offputting to me at least.

Looking at 40K having had 10 editions since 1987 just makes me not want to buy into any of the new editions since they will be gone soon enough anyway. And having been around the merry-go-round enough times, I understand that a new edition is not an iterative improvement on an old edition most of the time, but just changing some stuff round, fixing some stuff and breaking other stuff.

3.6 years is just too short for me for a game edition. By contrast, D&D (which I also think changes edition too often) has had the same edition for nearly 10 years now. And since 1974 it's had OD&D, Basic and it's derivatives, AD&D1, AD&D2, 3, 4 and 5. 7 editions with 13 extra years to release them in. And even then, I've basically signed out of following new edition updates for D&D.

So I think a really large edition number after a game (and I think 10 is really large) is a negative, and I'm not sure why they keep it going.

Because WHFB is now AoS, so TOW can't be WHFB 9th Ed.

 ingtaer wrote:
Does GW actually note the editions of their games anywhere? Epic never did and didn't include the tag 'Epic' until its third iteration (the first two being called AT and SM twice over).

Ok maybe they do not note the editions anywhere, but at least they keep the same name and say it is the same game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:
Because WHFB is now AoS, so TOW can't be WHFB 9th Ed.

But AoS has nothing to do with WHFB. Different minis, setting, rules, turn structure ...

Most of the AoS models are from WHFB. It's only in recent years that those armies that heavily rely on WHFB models have seen updated kits such as Slaves to Darkness or Seraphon. Skaven, Beastmen, Gloomspite Gitz, and Ogor Mawtribes are largely older kits while most other armies have at least a few legacies from WHFB.

The setting is a continuation of the WHFB setting with several characters from the World That Was having ascended to Godhood or returned due to magic or resurrection by various beings.

Rules changes mean nothing. 2nd Ed 40k and 10th Ed 40k have different rules but it's still the same continuation.

Age of Sigmar is the continuation of Warhammer Fantasy Battles. You don't have to like it but that doesn't make it untrue.

 Gert wrote:
Age of Sigmar is the continuation of Warhammer Fantasy Battles. You don't have to like it but that doesn't make it untrue.

Well... it isn't, because its named "Age of Sigmar".

Ruthlessly I think the issue is separating yourself from the past. Some fans may not like it - and we may blame GW for it - but WHFB and Epic both died out.

Sure, you could have renamed 40k with 8th or 10th. But would you really want to ditch the branding of the most successful miniatures game? Probably not.
Whereas TOW and LI are partly an appeal to an old game - but also aiming at a new audience with a new(ish) product.

The End Times literally leads onto AoS. It's the same setting.

Do you also think that The Dark Knight isn't a continuation of Batman Begins because the names are different despite the characters, setting, and most of the actors being the same?

New name, new trademark, new licensing brand.

Also The Old World is set before WHFB, so can't be a continuation as it's effectively a prequel.

So phantom menace, attack of the clones etc aren't star wars because they were prequels?

Setting doesn't really have prequels/sequels/whatever. You have one world and background. FB isn't some storyline anyway but setting.

Tyel wrote:
Some fans may not like it - and we may blame GW for it - but WHFB and Epic both died out.

Given how GW handled WHFB 8th and Epic: Armageddon, they didn't die out - they were murdered.

Epic 40K was also murdered!

Some crazy ideas about sequels and prequels and continuations and stuff.

I think the simplest answer for Warhammer is that GW decided to rebrand everything as "Warhammer", and they have another main game that would have equal claim to the title "Fantasy".

In the case of Epic, I think it's maybe just because the word "Epic" is being used by other companies now. Warlord Games has their "Epic Battles" range of models that are 10mm scale, and Mantic are releasing their Epic game soon too. Also Epic Games is a thing in the video game market (I know they technically also existed in the 90's when Epic the wargame was a thing, but they weren't as big as they are now).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Some fans may not like it - and we may blame GW for it - but WHFB and Epic both died out.

Given how GW handled WHFB 8th and Epic: Armageddon, they didn't die out - they were murdered.

Haha, yeah, basically.

Tyel wrote:


Ruthlessly I think the issue is separating yourself from the past. Some fans may not like it - and we may blame GW for it - but WHFB and Epic both died out.
.

Yeah. Fb while top-3 miniature game but not selling marine level. On that logic aos, lotr, legions, tow and indeed every game and army beside marines should.

And last epic they killed exceeded gw's own expectations on selling by 400% so wasn't killed off because it didn't sell. Problem for gw was they thought selling multiple games just direct spending from 1 game to other. They saw it as zero-sum game. Multiple games rather than increase sales just shift.

Aka they thought "if we only sell x everybody buys x". Thought people just don"t buy anything didn't cross their mind...

tneva82 wrote:

Tyel wrote:


Ruthlessly I think the issue is separating yourself from the past. Some fans may not like it - and we may blame GW for it - but WHFB and Epic both died out.
.

Yeah. Fb while top-3 miniature game but not selling marine level. On that logic aos, lotr, legions, tow and indeed every game and army beside marines should.

And last epic they killed exceeded gw's own expectations on selling by 400% so wasn't killed off because it didn't sell. Problem for gw was they thought selling multiple games just direct spending from 1 game to other. They saw it as zero-sum game. Multiple games rather than increase sales just shift.

Aka they thought "if we only sell x everybody buys x". Thought people just don"t buy anything didn't cross their mind...

I think it was also that GW of that time was looking for maximum return on investment. So short term side games that were basically "one and done" so that there'd be no long term investments required.
Another is that they were likely looking for the best return on investment. Which meant everyone was likely being compared to Marine sales and other top sellers; which led to GW hyper investing more and more into those elements and leaving other parts out. Done for years and without the feedback from actual customers this meant they wound up focusing more and more on fewer things, but at the same time they were bleeding customers because whilst they were investing in their most popular elements; they were letting everything else fall away.

GW today seems much more aware that Marine players need Xenos players ot fight against; that Marine players also play Xenos and that if they start a game and end it the 3rd party (ergo everyone else outside of GW) will start a clone game and will make good money with it. So GW today is much much more about broad investment to capture as many customers as possible and likely about seeking good return on investment in a broad sense rather than maximum return on investment. They also do community surveys and listen much more so to their customers.

Specialist games are a great way for GW to retain customers if they for some reason need a pause from the main games.

Not only do people like to have at least some variety in their games but sometimes GW make terrible decisions for their main games and people get burned out or lose interest in them while still wanting to continue with Warhammer in some form. Used to be that the numbers of 40k players increased when WFB were in a slump and the reverse also happened. Rarely both games were in a bad spot at the same time so as long as you played both you would be able to have a good time. Or Blood Bowl, Mordheim, Epic, Gothic, Necromunda, LotR or whatever GW made got a jump in popularity at that point. It was refreshing yet a familiar environment to play one of those games instead and after a couple of months/years you were ready to go back to WFB or 40k.

It is a smart decision by GW to go back to having multiple games even if they aren't as profitable as 40k. If they stay in the GW ecosystem when they lose interest in AoS or 40k then they are more likely to go back to the main game in the future or just stay in the specialist game corner. Much better for GW than having their customers search outside of their area for a new game to pick their interest. Because if they find other companies and start to experience what others have to offer they might move away from GW completely rather than just lower their spending for a short while.

I think it is both good and bad for the hobby as a whole GW has realized this. It makes it a bit harder for other companies to grow when GW always have an alternative specialist game that could take disenfranchised players interests but at the same time players are unlikely to completely drop out of the hobby because they can't find anything to do when their army suck in current edition of 40k. (Not everyone knows where to find others games or more commonly where to find gamers of those games). If they at least branch out to other specialist games they might be more open to continue branching out at some point to other manufacturers. Better than completely losing interest and dropping out of the hobby forever.

tneva82 wrote:
Problem for gw was they thought selling multiple games just direct spending from 1 game to other. They saw it as zero-sum game. Multiple games rather than increase sales just shift.

I'm glad they came to their senses and now market 12 different games despite not being able to meet demand on any of them.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Problem for gw was they thought selling multiple games just direct spending from 1 game to other. They saw it as zero-sum game. Multiple games rather than increase sales just shift.

I'm glad they came to their senses and now market 12 different games despite not being able to meet demand on any of them.

While it sucks they can't keep stuff in stock, for those of us that don't care too much about GW's main games, having a bunch of other options keeps us as GW customers.

If GW kept going down the road they were on, I probably wouldn't be on this forum, as I hadn't bought anything for WHFB since early 8th edition and hadn't bought anything for 40k since, I don't remember, maybe 5th edition (unless you count the 6th ed codex). If GW didn't release Blood Bowl and 2nd ed Aeronautica Imperialis, I would have been lost to the wind.

Yes and no

the side games being there to catch those falling from the main games, who in the past went to other manufacturers instead and are now kept inside the GW bubble (with LI and TOW closing the gaps, now just BFG is missing)

yet not being able to meet demand and keep up production to support everything leads to the same result, people wandering off

so not sure if that trade off works for GW in the long run to keep people inside their ecosystem with new games were you cannot buy the stuff you want

Works well for brand slaves who don't really care what they're buying as long as it's GW, they will forget the frustration of not being able to buy this release the moment next week's preview drops and they fixate on that.

So, very briefly:

- GW changing the name of both games makes stronger branding and differenciation. Former names are too generic.

- Saying that they are a different, new game, helps appeal to new audience (on top of regular or classic players).

Both things are positive to marketing, and drive sales upwards in the long run.

Am I correct?

last point remains to be seen, but yes

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Works well for brand slaves who don't really care what they're buying as long as it's GW, they will forget the frustration of not being able to buy this release the moment next week's preview drops and they fixate on that.

Or, and hear me out, some people understand the concept of patience and don't need immediate gratification like a five-year-old.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SU-152 wrote:
So, very briefly:

- GW changing the name of both games makes stronger branding and differenciation. Former names are too generic.

- Saying that they are a different, new game, helps appeal to new audience (on top of regular or classic players).

Both things are positive to marketing, and drive sales upwards in the long run.

Am I correct?

Pretty much.