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.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
I can't agree, listed companies have entirely different goals, methods, and cultures and very little of those are conducive to running a niche company who place high value on customer retention. GW is actually a perfect example of how going public, for want of a better term, "corrupts" the company over the long term; in the beginning, yes, the investors are typically hands-off, but eventually some of them do look into the business, and they see something completely alien to the way things are done in the City. Bit by bit, the culture in the company's management changes to meet the expectations of the investors, profit becomes a bigger and bigger motivator, until eventually either the company and product go fully mainstream and are bought out by a larger conglomerated entity, or the people in charge suck out every last dreg of money they can and leave the company to go under.

Once the process has begun, the best that the consumers who like the product can do is hope that either A; when the product goes fully mainstream, it retains enough of what made it special as a niche product that they can still enjoy it, or B; when the company does eventually get driven over a cliff, the remains can be bought up cheap and rebuilt into a niche company again by someone with a genuine passion for the task.

I really don't see their problems tied to their shareholders - rather the man at the top. While he might be motivated now more by creating a golden parachute for the next year or two when he retires - it isn't necessarily indicative of how publicly traded companies in the same class (niche industries - not necessarily games) are run. On the contrary, most of them which I have seen tend to have a hands off approach provided that they continue to make reasonable numbers year after year.

Kirby though seems intent on the idea that it is only the GW stores which grew the company throughout the 1990s and that new customers coming in through GW stores will continue to do so. The price hikes that happen year after year are a result of that strategy failing and needing to inflate the sales to maintain the numbers for the next year so that the share holders don't toss him out. Again, while I can understand how it might seem like that is a result of the pressures from the share holders - I think it is more an issue relating to the person and his wrong headed strategy.

If you look at a property like Magic the Gathering, it is still largely the same game as it was 20 years ago. They still host tournaments. Wizards of the Coast is left alone by Hasbro to make their own decisions (for better or for worse). Most investors understand when they don't understand something - but at the same time recognize when there is money to be made.

If the company were to go completely tits up though, it would likely be purchased by an IP clearing house rather than an individual who is interested in the game or miniatures. The license fees and potential license fees would make them more interested in it and likely put it out of the reach of most individuals.

Oh I do agree that Kirby is the main issue, I merely believe that a Kirby-alike figure rising to the top of the company like a floater in the sewer is an inevitable result of a company putting itself on the markets; in some sectors it happens almost immediately, in more niche sectors it sometimes takes longer, but it will happen eventually. You simply can't keep the City culture at arms length, it's like Chaos; insidious, and once you're in you're in all the way even if you don't recognise it yourself at the time.

You're right about the IP thing, I only said that an individual or small group with a passion for the IP buying out the company was the best that we could hope for if the company goes tits-up, I don't think its particularly likely to happen. Hell, at the rate they're devouring nerdy IPs right now, I wouldn't be surprised if GW gets absorbed into the amorphous blob that is Disney in a couple of years

 Yodhrin wrote:

Oh I do agree that Kirby is the main issue, I merely believe that a Kirby-alike figure rising to the top of the company like a floater in the sewer is an inevitable result of a company putting itself on the markets; in some sectors it happens almost immediately, in more niche sectors it sometimes takes longer, but it will happen eventually. You simply can't keep the City culture at arms length, it's like Chaos; insidious, and once you're in you're in all the way even if you don't recognise it yourself at the time.

You're right about the IP thing, I only said that an individual or small group with a passion for the IP buying out the company was the best that we could hope for if the company goes tits-up, I don't think its particularly likely to happen. Hell, at the rate they're devouring nerdy IPs right now, I wouldn't be surprised if GW gets absorbed into the amorphous blob that is Disney in a couple of years

Meanwhile, in the future...


And just to note, I don't think Kirby is doing a good job at all. All he is doing is keeping the share holders happy so he keeps his job. I doubt he want to quit though. He is likely a work-a-holic and realizes that he doesn't have any prospects outside GW.

silent25 wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

If you look at a property like Magic the Gathering, it is still largely the same game as it was 20 years ago. They still host tournaments. Wizards of the Coast is left alone by Hasbro to make their own decisions (for better or for worse). Most investors understand when they don't understand something - but at the same time recognize when there is money to be made.

One major note that doesn't make that comparison work. MtG has a built in shelf life on their product. After 18 months, the vast majority of cards become worthless and are no longer useable except in open play. And that is not where the majority of tournament play is. WotC has been able to convince their player base that it is in their best interests to essentially completely reinvest in their game ever 18 months. Plus, playing the game recently, it is fairly different from when I played it in the early 90's. And WotC has changed the game a bit every expansion or else it would have stagnated and withered away like almost all other CCGs.

As for shareholders, we have all been saying how the changes GW does always look good to an MBA on paper. They are likely meant to calm the investment houses that have tens of millions invested in GW. If the top three investment houses were to lose faith in Kirby they would have the power to boot him and put someone in that they would think could do a better job. And having two retired family friends who worked in upper management at publicly traded companies, they openly talked about the pressure from investment houses on the need for short term gains. As it stands, Kirby is sitting on 2 million shares worth $20 million US. I don't exactly see how he is going to significantly pad his retirement further with a few more years of dividends. And if he is anything like these two, he isn't going to retire. He's going to keep working till they kick him out.

You are missing the point. It isn't that GW is equal to Magic. They are different games and have different purposes - as well as somewhat different methods of growing the IP.

The point is that not all corporations feel a need to meddle in the way that a niche company will do business moving forward. The way WotC handles magic now is the same way they handled it prior to the Hasbro buyout and is very much like the way that Richard Garfield intended it to be when he designed the game while at University of Pennsylvania. Issues relating to obsolescence or lack their of aren't really for this thread - but the core issue there has nothing to do with casual play (which is the vast majority of any game play) rather tournament rules. Tournaments where designed around the concept of limiting the cards which could be used in them in order to avoid shutting out new players who would have a harder time obtaining out of print cards. By making sure they used recent cards, anyone would have a reasonable chance to be competitive. Outside of competitive play though (and the few open tournaments they do) people still use cards that are 15-20 years old with some frequency.

There are plenty of other examples where corporations (or shareholders) are content to let a company do their thing - provided that their thing continues to turn a profit...or the chairman has a good reason as to why a profit was not made.

Regarding Kirby's holdings - shares are worth a bit, but can prove problematic for him to liquidate (selling off 6% of a company tends to have a negative impact on the stock price). However, every dividend check that goes out is money in the bank. When this next dividend check is cut in April, Kirby will have made roughly $1.8 million off the dividends. Whether or not he is specifically planning on retiring - based on other companies I have watched and studied, that is the pattern he seems to be following right now. Another year or two in dividends would provide cash on hand of a third the value of the stock he holds.

I wouldn't be surprised if GW gets absorbed into the amorphous blob that is Disney in a couple of years

Then the chibi marines would become a reality.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

There are plenty of other examples where corporations (or shareholders) are content to let a company do their thing - provided that their thing continues to turn a profit...or the chairman has a good reason as to why a profit was not made.

Regarding Kirby's holdings - shares are worth a bit, but can prove problematic for him to liquidate (selling off 6% of a company tends to have a negative impact on the stock price). However, every dividend check that goes out is money in the bank. When this next dividend check is cut in April, Kirby will have made roughly $1.8 million off the dividends. Whether or not he is specifically planning on retiring - based on other companies I have watched and studied, that is the pattern he seems to be following right now. Another year or two in dividends would provide cash on hand of a third the value of the stock he holds.

Oh I don't disagree that companies are safe as long as they are doing well. I have experienced that first hand. Difference is, GW is already recovering from a downturn. Once you stumble, they will always keep an eye on you and second guess you. Magic has been going steady since Hasbro bought them and there is no reason to second guess them.

Also, I'm not sure where you are getting the 1.8 from. The next dividend payment is 24p which will translate to about $820k for Kirby. Even assuming the second half of this year is the same, it will only mean about an 8% return on the value of the shares. No bad mind you, but at that level of income, he has full access to all brokerage houses funds that return far more. Plus other major firms have already dissolved their holdings since last summer of far more than Kirbys value and the stock has not changed much to reflect it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Will just add, that all my experience with "casual Magic play" and from those that still play. They only play tournament legal decks. That is the situation in my area. It may be different in yours.

Meant to say in the past year on the dividend. This one in April will be the third dividend in this calendar year. One for 24p, one for 18p and one for 16p.

http://investor.games-workshop.com/2013/02/25/dividend-2/

http://investor.games-workshop.com/2012/11/22/dividend/

http://investor.games-workshop.com/2012/05/17/dividend-and-trading-update/

Keeps me happy as an investor; though I sold some of my stock recently.

Sean_OBrien wrote:Meant to say in the past year on the dividend. This one in April will be the third dividend in this calendar year. One for 24p, one for 18p and one for 16p.

http://investor.games-workshop.com/2013/02/25/dividend-2/

http://investor.games-workshop.com/2012/11/22/dividend/

http://investor.games-workshop.com/2012/05/17/dividend-and-trading-update/

KK

agnosto wrote:Keeps me happy as an investor; though I sold some of my stock recently.

Yea, I sold mine after the January payment. Felt the Hobbit bomb was coming and was going to tank the stock. Cash in my gains because any significant drop would be more than what the dividend payment would be worth. Plus it was in my retirement account, so don't have to pay capital gains on it

 Sean_OBrien wrote:


Regarding Kirby's holdings - shares are worth a bit, but can prove problematic for him to liquidate (selling off 6% of a company tends to have a negative impact on the stock price). However, every dividend check that goes out is money in the bank. When this next dividend check is cut in April, Kirby will have made roughly $1.8 million off the dividends. Whether or not he is specifically planning on retiring - based on other companies I have watched and studied, that is the pattern he seems to be following right now. Another year or two in dividends would provide cash on hand of a third the value of the stock he holds.

Its also worth noting that kirby gave himself a 20% pay increase not to long ago. This guy is pretty much in absolute control of the company.

 kronk wrote:

 PLC wrote:
Why would anyone think a private buyout (management or otherwise) would make GW less focused on profitability and performance?

Given these are typically funded by debt there is an even greater incentive to wring every last cent out of the company in the short term - either to meet debt servicing costs or reduce gearing.

Also, I don't trust any of you fethers to run it properly.

Yes you shouldent.. It would not be fun if I got my hands on it. If I could do what I wanted with GW.. I would sell of all the production equipment.. shut down all productions. Then make a Youtube Video with a gigantic bonfire, where I would burn every last mini still in stock.. as a public spectacal... Then I would hire laywers to bury, the IP.. so even after my death nobody could get their hands on it.. I would END the GW universe for good..... You might think of this as extreme but I would get off on the outcry... Its just to good to pass up, if given the chans to do it haha... Nothing of all the nasty gak I have pulled in EvE online could even come close to doing this.. It would propel me into global Infamay over night ... Little gamers would speak in hushed tones about the man who destroyed GW and burned the castle to the ground hahaha.. and Why? just because I could.. thats why... and I love the sound of weeping nerd tears in the morning..

Considering the growth of Warmachine and Hordes since 2010, I think we could expect a substantial boost to their sales figures today. 2010 was when the boom started - in Norway, we started with 4 players then. In January this year, 40 people attended the Nationals, a larger showing than the 40k Nationals held in the adjacent hall. The swedes barely got 20 people (if that) together for "large" tourneys in 2009...in 2012 their 90-seat tourneys get sold out in a couple of months. In the US, Lock & Load doubled its attendance number from 2012 to 2013 and as far as I know, Templecon also grew substantially.

It is a different world these days,

Warmachine/hordes is growing fast in the northen european countries. I think part of this has to do with that the driving force behind the scene here is competition. And when GW falls behind in that aspect people turn to other games to get that Tournament fix.. We also have a very large older population still playing these types of games, and we play at our local clubs more then we play at LGSs. And the association (could not find a better word in english, its called förening in swedish). Are sponserd by the state. So publicly founded groups of people, that do dont make a profit off the hobby(its not legal in sweden to do this).. are the driving force behind gaming here.. This I think makes a huge diffrence compared to the US, were capitalism dictates you have to make a profit. This means that my local clubb that has over 20+ members is run as a nonprofit and democratic organisation. We have our own gaming place with terrain, tables where our members can play table top games. We are not associated with any retail business, this gives us a more impartial view towards the games we play, because our survival is not dependent on sales. Our goverment gives us money instead because we fall under the same category as any other type of Sports or group activity preformed by a larger group of people. If you have a large enough group doing something here, the local goverment(kommun) has a legal obligation to provide us with a space/place to do it in also...
I think you have to take things like this into account when you see the growth of games.. If GWs local store would close it would have zero impact on the scene here, that Saff that mans the stores know this and have set an age limit on the people who play there. Going in there these days you see parents sitting reading a news papper or drinking coffy and talking, while there kidds play and paint miniatures... Its more like a kindergarten, then a gaming store these days..these 10-12 year olds do not participate in the local gaming scene.. And when they grow older, and if they still have the interest they end up in a club instead, and have to accept the games that are played there.. And these days those games are not often GWs..

40K's popularity was built on their Grand Tournaments. Throughout most of the 1990s all the way till the dramatic drop off on the charts. When GW started to stop trying to balance the game, and the most recent edition where they have completely given up on the concept...tournaments drove a lot of interest.

That is one of the reasons you saw an explosion for Magic the Gathering when it came onto the scene, and it is one of the big reasons for the growth in PP games. People like the idea of competing against each other. Even people who do not play in tournaments directly are impacted as tournament players tend to show up more often at game nights - and that helps to increase the availability of the products towards that critical mass point where the customers can actually take over the job of advertising the product.

I also find it interesting that you mentioned that GW is in a free fall in some places in the States. I thought it had a strong following all over the country. But you mentioned a few times in other posts Sean_OBrien that this is not the case. This was news for me. Also the things you mentioned above is the root of the problem i think.. Zero suport for Tournaments and the communites will kill of the GW side of the hobby. I think this relates back to the online gaming industry. Companies like Blizzard, Riot games, Steam and many others are pushing hard for E-sports. Computer gamers, and now i mean the younger crowed, that might want to get into Table-top gaming, cry out for balance and statistics. The younger generations are not like us old dudes, who played games for fun and to socialize with friends. They want the competition, there are endless internet sites with builds and strategies to help people maximize there potential in games. If the Table-top industry do not follow the general trend, they will be left behind. Companies like PP have realized this and are doing it, but GW has not cought up and are slowly getting left behind like, Books (people read on the pad now), Kodac(people want digital photos) The music Industry(people download for free live with it). The world has also become a much smaller place and things move alot faster then it did 20+ years ago.... GW either has to get with the times or become extinct, like the dinosaur's. That is just how i see it..

Ok, I've had enough, you just made the prowess that no GW White Knight managed, welcome to my ignore list.

 Nucflash wrote:
-snip-

You're really not helping the perception that tournament-focused gamers are unpleasant people you know.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Nucflash wrote:
-snip-

You're really not helping the perception that tournament-focused gamers are unpleasant people you know.

QFT - I don't go to Tournaments anymore because I had a epiphany last year and released that 90% of people at Tournaments are (to use that US phrase that fits so well) Douchebags...

I spent alot of money to play unenjoyable games with a bunch of people I wouldn't play if i had the choice, then I realized I enjoy games with my friends more and so gave up on Tournaments, it was the best thing I did, I now have more money for toys as I wasted money on Hotels, tickets, food and transport all to have a "Mediocre time". Tournaments aren't for me, but it took me along time to realize it.

 mwnciboo wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Nucflash wrote:
-snip-

You're really not helping the perception that tournament-focused gamers are unpleasant people you know.

QFT - I don't go to Tournaments anymore because I had a epiphany last year and released that 90% of people at Tournaments are (to use that US phrase that fits so well) Douchebags...

I spent alot of money to play unenjoyable games with a bunch of people I wouldn't play if i had the choice, then I realized I enjoy games with my friends more and so gave up on Tournaments, it was the best thing I did, I now have more money for toys as I wasted money on Hotels, tickets, food and transport all to have a "Mediocre time". Tournaments aren't for me, but it took me along time to realize it.

I think you are over generalizing. The only consistent bad tournaments I have experienced were the ard boyz and that exercise in failure was designed to attract the worst players and worst kind of play. I will say that I have had more immature 40k opponents than fantasy opponents but did experience a couple of rotten apples at one major whfb tournament. Overall I have had more good tournament game experiences in 40k and whfb by far than bad ones.

No I'm not over-generalising, people turn into uber-competitive nonces at tournaments. Rules lawyers, little deft of hands, trying to pull the wool over others eyes etc.

I've been to about 20, I've enjoyed maybe 2 or 3.

Tournaments by definition attract the worst kinds of players because they are "Competitive". If you don't want to win why are you there? To be stomped on by everyone else and used as a tournament Whipping boy? For the experience of having your ass handed to you ? To be part of Community? To say you've been to one? To try and improve your game, but to what end (To be come one of the Uber-Competitive nonces?).

Anyway we are way off topic here.....Games workshop is in rocky place - Based on my Club we are abandoning GW in droves for Warma-Hordes and FOW.

 mwnciboo wrote:
No I'm not over-generalising, people turn into uber-competitive nonces at tournaments. Rules lawyers, little deft of hands, trying to pull the wool over others eyes etc.

You are over-generalizing. You just said that everyone that goes to a tournament does these things.

If you don't want to win, why do you play a game?

rigeld2 wrote:

 mwnciboo wrote:
No I'm not over-generalising, people turn into uber-competitive nonces at tournaments. Rules lawyers, little deft of hands, trying to pull the wool over others eyes etc.

You are over-generalizing. You just said that everyone that goes to a tournament does these things.

If you don't want to win, why do you play a game?

So by your definition I cannot game for fun? For the spectacle, the social side, the chance to meet friends and enjoy a bit of fun or to share in a bit of drama? If I don't want to win I shouldn't play games?

The whole point of competition e.g Tournaments is that some has to win, and in my experience they all want to win otherwise they wouldn't be at the tournament - But don't confuse Winning with Fun. That's a major turn-off for me, some of the best games I've had is when I have lost and it has been close, or even funnier a complete fluke based trouncing based on failing 2-3 or three critical ones. I've had pretty epic draws too.

I don't care about winning or losing, I care about enjoying my social time. For me tournaments are poor return on investment, unless your idea of fun is winning then all power to you. But for me most people at tournaments are far too serious about winning something that means nothing whatsoever.

rigeld2 wrote:

 mwnciboo wrote:
No I'm not over-generalising, people turn into uber-competitive nonces at tournaments. Rules lawyers, little deft of hands, trying to pull the wool over others eyes etc.

You are over-generalizing. You just said that everyone that goes to a tournament does these things.

If you don't want to win, why do you play a game?

This just in: entire videogames industry in shock after discovering that they have, in fact, been "doing it wrong" by including co-op modes in games

You play a game to have fun, and if you can only have fun when you win, you're going to spend an awful lot of time unhappy.

 Yodhrin wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 mwnciboo wrote:
No I'm not over-generalising, people turn into uber-competitive nonces at tournaments. Rules lawyers, little deft of hands, trying to pull the wool over others eyes etc.

You are over-generalizing. You just said that everyone that goes to a tournament does these things.

If you don't want to win, why do you play a game?

This just in: entire videogames industry in shock after discovering that they have, in fact, been "doing it wrong" by including co-op modes in games

That's not a straight comparison. Co-op modes in video games means multiple people working together to beat the game. That'd be the same thing as a multiplayer wargame with more than one player ON THE SAME TEAM. And even then, you're playing against the other side in order to 'defeat' them.

To quote Reiner Knizia, "The goal is to win, but it is the goal that is important - not the winning."

rigeld2 wrote:

 mwnciboo wrote:
No I'm not over-generalising, people turn into uber-competitive nonces at tournaments. Rules lawyers, little deft of hands, trying to pull the wool over others eyes etc.

You are over-generalizing. You just said that everyone that goes to a tournament does these things.

If you don't want to win, why do you play a game?

Not a historical gamer, are you?

mwnciboo wrote:I don't care about winning or losing, I care about enjoying my social time. For me tournaments are poor return on investment, unless your idea of fun is winning then all power to you. But for me most people at tournaments are far too serious about winning something that means nothing whatsoever.

I play pretty much only in tournaments and rarely get a "normal" game in anymore. I've had 1 game that wasn't fun, ever. You over-generalized and said that everyone at a tournament is like that and its demonstrably false.

Yodhrin wrote:This just in: entire videogames industry in shock after discovering that they have, in fact, been "doing it wrong" by including co-op modes in games

You play a game to have fun, and if you can only have fun when you win, you're going to spend an awful lot of time unhappy.

News Flash - games don't sell nearly as well if the only multiplayer is co-op. it also has nothing to do with what I said.
My point is - if you're not playing a game to win and just want the social aspect, why play a game at all? Why not just sit around a table, kick back and relax with your friends?
Or is the contest on the table actually fun? Meaning that you do try to win?
Playing to win does not mean you aren't having fun when you lose. It means you're playing to win.

judgedoug wrote:Not a historical gamer, are you?

Not recently because I moved away from the historical minis club I played in. We did a lot of napoleonic, wwI, and wwII scenarios.
Even in the scenarios where one side was essentially guaranteed to be destroyed there were objectives to meet.
And again, even when losing it can be fun. But saying you don't play to win is saying that there's no reason to play at all - you might as well show up, not bother unpacking your army, roll some dice and just relax.

rigeld2 wrote:

mwnciboo wrote:I don't care about winning or losing, I care about enjoying my social time. For me tournaments are poor return on investment, unless your idea of fun is winning then all power to you. But for me most people at tournaments are far too serious about winning something that means nothing whatsoever.

I play pretty much only in tournaments and rarely get a "normal" game in anymore. I've had 1 game that wasn't fun, ever. You over-generalized and said that everyone at a tournament is like that and its demonstrably false.

Agree. Not everyone at tourneys is in it to win it. They are very social, and a great use of time as it is organized gaming with usually people who actually know the rules. They are a lot of fun and usually these false ideas of what tourneys are are held by people who have never been, or they are the person who is the 'problem' and they can't tell.

Getting multiple quality games on good tables in one or two days? Yes please. Seeing a bunch of cool models and meeting new people, even better. Anything *BUT* tourneys is a poor use of my time as it is now.

I can't speak to tournaments specifically as I've never participated in one, but in general when I play with my friends we couldn't care less who wins; I have to imagine there is a sizeable contingent of like minded folks at tournaments.

 infinite_array wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 mwnciboo wrote:
No I'm not over-generalising, people turn into uber-competitive nonces at tournaments. Rules lawyers, little deft of hands, trying to pull the wool over others eyes etc.

You are over-generalizing. You just said that everyone that goes to a tournament does these things.

If you don't want to win, why do you play a game?

This just in: entire videogames industry in shock after discovering that they have, in fact, been "doing it wrong" by including co-op modes in games

That's not a straight comparison. Co-op modes in video games means multiple people working together to beat the game. That'd be the same thing as a multiplayer wargame with more than one player ON THE SAME TEAM. And even then, you're playing against the other side in order to 'defeat' them.

I disagree, most of the 40K games I play are played like an RPG, with the players working together to tell a story regardless of what force they control on the tabletop, and the same is true of co-op computer games; multiple players working together to advance a story.

I am not trying to "win", the commander of the army I'm playing is; I am trying to have an enjoyable experience with a friend, which of us wins the game is unimportant.

The objective of a game is to win, either that victory comes from crushing your opponent or fulfilling designated objectives before your inevitable demise, it depends on the game itself, but the objective is still to win and no one, no matter what rhetoric they display on the forums, plays a game without trying to win it.

The purpose of a game is to have fun, despite the fact that you may win or loose the objective of the game, you still need to have fun doing it, otherwise, why bother?

PhantomViper wrote:
The objective of a game is to win, either that victory comes from crushing your opponent or fulfilling designated objectives before your inevitable demise, it depends on the game itself, but the objective is still to win and no one, no matter what rhetoric they display on the forums, plays a game without trying to win it.

The purpose of a game is to have fun, despite the fact that you may win or loose the objective of the game, you still need to have fun doing it, otherwise, why bother?

Again: Wrong. The objective of a game is what the rules/players decide the objective is; if me and my mates design a scenario which makes it literally impossible for one of the two forces to win as part of a campaign, because the storyline of the campaign requires that side to lose a major battle, then how can my objective be to win the game? One of my mates used to play SWG exclusively to mess about with the housing system, his character never once crafted anything, engaged in combat with anything, or did any of the NPC-given quests, literally all he did was log into the game and decorate other players' homes for them; how is he supposed to "win"?

Even in guaranteed loss scenarios there should be something for the losing side to do - special units to destroy, hold past a certain turn, etc. if there isn't then there's no point in even putting minis down - the exact same result could be had by saying "I attacked, you lost. Want to play the next game in the campaign?"

And you can't "win" in MMORPGs because there's no end. If your goal is to play with housing, then play with housing.

IMO playing a war game is like a journey.
The players have an enjoyable and interesting trip to their destination, who arrives their 'first' is not so much of an issue.

If however, the trip is boring uninspiring and a bit of a chore,then there is a STRONG motive to get to the end as soon as possible.And who finishes first becomes the main focus.

IMO, 40k has such 'bland' game play, players feel compelled to add a ton of flavorful narrative/senarios, to make the journey more interesting.
OR focus solely on the ONLY game play element left , the end result.(W/L/D.)

Other games with more game play focus, that deliver a more interesting playing experience,do not seem to suffer from this player base dichotemy.

I admit it is a broad generalization, but I hope you can understand the fault is with GW plc, and not with your fellow gamers.

rigeld2 wrote:
Even in guaranteed loss scenarios there should be something for the losing side to do - special units to destroy, hold past a certain turn, etc. if there isn't then there's no point in even putting minis down - the exact same result could be had by saying "I attacked, you lost. Want to play the next game in the campaign?"

And you can't "win" in MMORPGs because there's no end. If your goal is to play with housing, then play with housing.

YOU don't think there's a point, stop pretending that your opinion is anything more than that. The point is to play the game, to tell the story; "I attacked, you lost" is not a story. Not playing means nobody gets to experience the heroic last stand of C Platoon, 5th Co. at the ridgeline; it means nobody ever fondly remembers the time their character, all set for his own heroic last stand, got killed in the opening moves of combat by a lowly Guardsman. If you need to have rigid objectives, a "go here, do this, win" system in order to enjoy the experience of playing a game, fine, some of us have more imagination.

Thanks for the insulting tone.

If all you're doing is telling a story and the game can have zero outcome on the story... What's the point of playing again? Why not just write a story?

Whatever - your version if fun is better than mine. Does that make you feel better?