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.

 Orock wrote:
and that in 10 years time when 3d printing destroys them

As eager as some are for this to happen, it isn't inevitable. Jes Goodwin mentioned that they have plans to incorporate it into their business once it's more advanced, IIRC saying that they could have 3D printers in-store that let people model their faces onto minis and such. Similarly, equivalent advances in other industries haven't necessarily destroyed major companies.

Am I the only one who thinks a 40k actual play video game would be horrible. I play vassal from time to time and it is so much worse than the table top. Pick up play due to crappy rules is a nightmare at times. IT is very slow to move models. Can you even imagine needing to pull down to check LOS or the like.

I think it would sell to guys already in the hobby, but I doubt the typical gamer will enjoy it much. The game of 40k just does not have a solid enough rules foundation to be fun as a video game.

 Peregrine wrote:
That's because of GW's bizarre failure to turn the 40k games into a real marketing effort. Sure, it says "Games Workshop" down at the bottom, but where's the "you played it on your PC, now play it on your table" marketing effort to convert those video game customers into tabletop customers? Instead GW is content to just give out the license and passively collect the extra income.

That would require a modicum of effort though, and why put effort into licensed products? The whole aim is to just get paid and do as little work as possible.

GW's "Oh, hey, BTW, some folks made this Ultramarine movie. Go watch it. Or don't. Whatever." attitude when the Ultramarine movie came out should give you a clear indication of how willing they are to advertise for something that might directly benefit them but isn't made by them.

Honestly GW reminds me of Microsoft around the time the internet was just becoming popular. They dismissed it as a passing fad and it cost them dearly and they've been playing catch up ever since. GW seems stuck in the past as far as what they do with everything other than insane price raising every year or so, seemingly just because they can get away with it. They don't care about testing rules and in fact broken rules helps them due to being able to push OP crap to sell the latest expensive figure(s).

In fact GW is basically the definition of a "pay to win" game outside of the MMO genre where that phrase is generally used!

 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.

From what I've read, Blizzard themselves were at least as much (if not more) responsible for that deal falling through, as the developers at Blizzard didn't really want a game based on someone else's IP, as that would cost them some control over it.

 insaniak 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.

From what I've read, Blizzard themselves were at least as much (if not more) responsible for that deal falling through, as the developers at Blizzard didn't really want a game based on someone else's IP, as that would cost them some control over it.

Also, Blizzard at that time was not nearly as large as it is today.

But that aside, there are plenty of Warhammer videogames.
I used to play a 40k game on my Nintendo DS when I was younger
There is the Space Marine fps
There is a Fire Warrior fps
There are several strategy based on WHFB (Shadow of the Horned Rat, Mark of Chaos)
There are the Blood Bowl games
The Creative Assembly is making a Warhammer Game
There is also a SW turn based strategy game being made
And if it weren't for the Dawn of War games, I would have never have gotten into 40k.

Saying GW is not catching up with it's time is just ridiculous.
The only thing we lack is a good, professional Warhammer movie.

Not to mention the upcoming 40K MMO 'Eternal Crusade', which looking pretty damn fun so far. There's also a DA Space Hulk game coming out at some point. If anything, GW is becoming more active in the videogame department lately.

This actually reminds me of a comment that Eternal Crusade's lead dev, Miguel Caron, made about how GW handles their IP these days. Basically, before it was mostly just one license to make a 40K videogame, so Relic just had that one license to make 40K games. Now, however, they split it up into parts. For example, Behaviour Interactive has the 40K MMO license, but Full Control would have gotten a separate license to make their Space Hulk game. So, in a way, GW is getting more with the times in regards to games, since they're being more liberal with their IP than before.

And yeah, the DoW games kept me interested in 40K after a brief time of playing the tabletop as a kid (along with BL books). I know that all the stories of that nature ITT are anecdotal, but the games do seem to have at least some effectiveness in spurring interest in the hobby.

and that in 10 years time when 3d printing destroys them

"The sky is falling the sky is falling! Something I don't fully understand is going to destroy something else I obviously don't fully understand!"

That about sums up how I feel about most of the 3D printing arguments around here. Having worked for years in Rapid Prototyping and Manufacturing, I can tell you that so far, there is still no easier, faster, or cheaper way to reproduce miniatures than by gluing them to the bottom of a bucket ... and you know the rest. NO ... EASIER ... CHEAPER ... WAY. And yet that hasn't even begun to come close to denting anyone's bottom line. With that in mind I very seriously doubt that a vastly more expensive (and yes, in ten years 3D printing will STILL be vastly more expensive than resin casting), more complex method that (despite what Dakka would have you believe) most people still don't understand is going to actually END GW.

As eager as some are for this to happen, it isn't inevitable. Jes Goodwin mentioned that they have plans to incorporate it into their business once it's more advanced, IIRC saying that they could have 3D printers in-store that let people model their faces onto minis and such. Similarly, equivalent advances in other industries haven't necessarily destroyed major companies.

Yes. Agreed completely. Like I said, many of the people arguing that this is going to happen really don't fully understand it.


As far as the question of GW not producing a true to table-top version of their games? I think someone else already hit on this, but it's about time and money. They don't want to spend the money required to put in the time it would take to produce it. They would much rather put that time and money into their actual TT games which is where they make all their money. GW is not nearly as big as some think it is and putting resources into something like that would certainly negatively effect things like their new release schedule.

That said, I'd be curious to see their reaction to a video game company offering to handle it the way Space Marine"

EDIT:

ot to mention the upcoming 40K MMO 'Eternal Crusade', which looking pretty damn fun so far. There's also a DA Space Hulk game coming out at some point. If anything, GW is becoming more active in the videogame department lately.

That's cool! I didn't know about those. Looking them up immediately!

 techsoldaten wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Orock wrote:
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.

That doesn't mean that GW are wrong... at least, not yet.

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.

That "GW rejected Blizzard" story smells of internet urban legend to me. Having read the actual interview with Patrick Wyatt where the issue is talked about, all we know is that, at some point, Blizzard considered approaching GW to market their game under the then more popular Warhammer brand, but ultimately decided against it given their terrible past experience working with DC Comics. From Wyatt's words I'm led to believe the proposed agreement between Blizzard and GW never went beyond the "office chit-chat" phase.

And yes, Warhammer no doubt influenced Warcraft just like G.I. Joe influenced Command & Conquer. Yet noone claims that originally Kane was intended to be Cobra Commander.

 Agent_Tremolo wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Orock wrote:
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.

That doesn't mean that GW are wrong... at least, not yet.

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.

That "GW rejected Blizzard" story smells of internet urban legend to me. Having read the actual interview with Patrick Wyatt where the issue is talked about, all we know is that, at some point, Blizzard considered approaching GW to market their game under the then more popular Warhammer brand, but ultimately decided against it given their terrible past experience working with DC Comics. From Wyatt's words I'm led to believe the proposed agreement between Blizzard and GW never went beyond the "office chit-chat" phase.

And yes, Warhammer no doubt influenced Warcraft just like G.I. Joe influenced Command & Conquer. Yet noone claims that originally Kane was intended to be Cobra Commander.

Yes, but... video games are a large boat. So what if Blizzard torpedoed the deal, GW still doesn't have a coherent digital games strategy. If they didn't want to work with Blizzard, they could have gone a lot of different ways. It looks like the ones they chose did not really pan out.

My friend Howard worked for Mythic Studios and later EA after they took over Warhammer Online. He was a producer, got involved with deals where they needed to assess the value of the IP for game titles. He's always saying the Warhammer brand itself is worth more than GW, if that makes any sense. The way they market the IP and do deals around it artificially limits its value.

I think, if anything, the Bloodbowl game for XBox and such...increased demand on getting into the long-forgotten by GW tabletop counterpart.

GW just doesn't understand cross-market exposure nor long term goals. They are a very poorly run short-sighted company with an admittedly strong niche community.

Why does GW refuse to get with the times!??!!*
*company regularly releases rulebooks, supplements, painting guides and more in rich digital formats

This Warmachine game has been getting delayed for years and years. Kind of lame that it took til now and a Kickstarter to maybe come out. GW doesn't want to do a straight adaptation of their rules because they feel it might cannibalize sales. I don't entirely doubt it, since I know I'd probably play a bit less on the tabletop if I could play on my PC. I'm cool with 40k games that aren't straight adaptations of the rules and offer something different. I've already got tabletop 40k.

 Orock wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:
Ok, one last thing. The game in question isn't actually a true tabletop representation of the board game. Was just looking up some more info on it.

This would be about equivalent of GW releasing a Necromunda game based on the XCOM engine (which would be awesome for sure, but not really a "virtual tabletop")

 Maddermax wrote:
It's a grid based tactical game, in the vein of X-Com and similar games. It will have quite a few features in common (feats, spells and focus seem reasonably similar), but a lot will be different (no units, only solos, jacks will have normal HP not a damage grid, models will be upgradeable with skill points RPG style). So it's really not going to be a direct copy of the game at all, it'll be it's own thing and stand on it's own merits.

That said, I'm hoping it'll scratch my WM itch when it comes out, because I don't get to play nearly as much as I'd like to.

well that is quite a bit different, but I agree with you, gorkamorka, mordheim, and necromunda all deserve the tabletop to game translation that space hulk and bloodbowl have got.

Gorkamorka almost was available for dreamcast.

Gorkamroka was only ever playable as a demo for Dreamcast, and at that I think they only ever showed it at E3 or a similar tradeshow.

Necromunda as an XCOM reskin would make me all kinds of happy, however.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
GW just doesn't understand cross-market exposure nor long term goals. They are a very poorly run short-sighted company with an admittedly strong niche community.

Or maybe a conservative company that sticks with what it knows, taking up new areas (digital releases for example) only when they think they understand the limits and benefits? The amount of competent personnel needed to cooperate with multiple markets - and not get burned - would cost big money so GW stockholders prefer to be careful instead. They're still a very small operation compared to other game&toy brands, setting up actual legal and marketing departments of the size needed would be major investments. Remember, these guys shiver when modeling a new army and setting up the molds costs real money. They see a major risk in launching X amount of "failed" kits or an entire unpopular army.

An army of legal and marketing professionals would cost far more than a single guy in a cellar making the masters for a new plastic kit even if he's a very good model maker.

 Brother SRM wrote:
Gorkamroka was only ever playable as a demo for Dreamcast, and at that I think they only ever showed it at E3 or a similar tradeshow.

Necromunda as an XCOM reskin would make me all kinds of happy, however.

Ditto.

I think they should make all of the discontinued specialist games into video games, tbh. They already remade Bloodbowl as a VG, so why not make it a trend?

Think about it -

Creative Assembly - Epic and Warmaster

Firaxis - Necromunda and Mordheim (hell, the idea of a necromunda game that uses the same principles as XCOM comes up quite often on the 2k forums)

Relic - Battlefleet Gothic.

No idea who would be good for Inquisitor though.

 Big Mac wrote:
Video games are there for people that have no interest in the hobby, such as assembling, converting, painting, rolling a dice, build and paint terrain, etc. GW being a hobby based company, have no interest in video games. I would however like them making a movie, TV series to help promote their sci-fi universe.

There are many people that enjoy both

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

No idea who would be good for Inquisitor though.

Either Bethesda or Bioware would be my "go to" choices. Depending on whether you want a fun game with a great story that's full of bugs, or a fun game with a great engine that has a mediocre/rushed story.

A tabletop version of 40k would have to solve all the rules problems. Howwould vague rules affect a videogame is making my head hurt by trying to imagine it.

Unless you can roll it off?

 dementedwombat wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

No idea who would be good for Inquisitor though.

Either Bethesda or Bioware would be my "go to" choices. Depending on whether you want a fun game with a great story that's full of bugs, or a fun game with a great engine that has a mediocre/rushed story.

How about CD Projekt Red instead?
Not sure it would be like Inquistor though :/

I think a Fallout-esque game might work, but no well-off company makes them anymore. They could license it to a small indy group, like they did with Space Hulk and Chainsaw Warrior...but those weren't very good :/

Spetulhu wrote:

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
GW just doesn't understand cross-market exposure nor long term goals. They are a very poorly run short-sighted company with an admittedly strong niche community.

Or maybe a conservative company that sticks with what it knows, taking up new areas (digital releases for example) only when they think they understand the limits and benefits? The amount of competent personnel needed to cooperate with multiple markets - and not get burned - would cost big money so GW stockholders prefer to be careful instead. They're still a very small operation compared to other game&toy brands, setting up actual legal and marketing departments of the size needed would be major investments. Remember, these guys shiver when modeling a new army and setting up the molds costs real money. They see a major risk in launching X amount of "failed" kits or an entire unpopular army.

An army of legal and marketing professionals would cost far more than a single guy in a cellar making the masters for a new plastic kit even if he's a very good model maker.

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.

 mk2 wrote:
its actually true they turned down "world of warhammer" that became world of warcraft because they did not believe in it.

No, it isn't. The Blizzard/GW thing is apocryphal at best, and begins and ends at the original Starcraft.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 insaniak 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.

From what I've read, Blizzard themselves were at least as much (if not more) responsible for that deal falling through, as the developers at Blizzard didn't really want a game based on someone else's IP, as that would cost them some control over it.

Also, Blizzard at that time was not nearly as large as it is today.

But that aside, there are plenty of Warhammer videogames.
I used to play a 40k game on my Nintendo DS when I was younger
There is the Space Marine fps
There is a Fire Warrior fps
There are several strategy based on WHFB (Shadow of the Horned Rat, Mark of Chaos)
There are the Blood Bowl games
The Creative Assembly is making a Warhammer Game
There is also a SW turn based strategy game being made
And if it weren't for the Dawn of War games, I would have never have gotten into 40k.

Saying GW is not catching up with it's time is just ridiculous.
The only thing we lack is a good, professional Warhammer movie.

Space Marine isn't an FPS, it's a TPS.

And Bethesda is a terrible choice for anything if you want a good story. They'd be great at immersing you in a W40K world, but don't expect to write home about the story.

If GW did this, they'd be a different company altogether.

A model making company is not going to switch to entirely being a video game company. That's like Apple deciding to suddenly open fast food restaurants, but maybe you can play angry birds on an iPad built into the tables at said restaurants.

Speaking of Apple, GW's move with the eBook Codexes and what not has been pretty smart and "with the times" too.

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

Second that; I didn't even know about 40k and GW before buying and playing the first DoW, and I got inot the Guard with Winter Assault.

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 a lot of people play using both systems.

1. video games are expensive

2. It is extremely hard to make a game with a different IP

3. Communication between companies

4. Funding

5. Getting the engine to make it

6. Delivering on mechanics

7. Staying true to the IP

8. The IP

It is very difficult to make a game based on another IP. It is a huge risk and very few game companies would like to do that, especially after seeing the unsuccessfullness of the dawn of war and space marine games. (Yes they are unsuccessful compared to most games that are sold) It is really hit and miss in the video game industry. And very few teams are willing to take that risk.

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.

Just now playing Kingdoms of Amalur- that game/engine could make a great Warhammer game.

Counterpoint:

I know plenty of people who got interested in the 40k game and modeling in general because Dawn of War got them interested in the game universe.

I am one of those people.

Eventually GW will have to change soon. They will go bankrupt, or adjust to the times. The issue is they exist to sell models, but 1) are not competitively priced with model companies that do not have games attached to their models. (Tamiya, for example, makes model aircraft to scale and degree better than any plastic kit GW puts out, for like $30 bucks a plane. GW on the other hand sells Valkyries which are about the same size for $66 bucks.) 2) They don't even have the best game on the market. Most fans of WFB/W40k readily admit the balancing issues of the game are many, and staggering. I don't know a lot of guys into Warmachines that actively rewrite the rules into something more balanced, and most of them seem to think it's pretty fair.

What happens when a company with an unbalanced game with overpriced models suddenly has to deal with consumer 3d printers obtainable at relatively cheap cost? It's coming. In about 3 to 5 years, 3d printers of great quality will be available on the consumer market. GW's stock will plummet. People will, IN DROVES, print their own high quality miniatures. If the Warhammer game itself isn't still drawing people to the table, they are finished. Their own prices will have to significantly drop, and if they don't have the best game on the marketplace, interest in their universe will continue a steady decline.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

It is very difficult to make a game based on another IP. It is a huge risk and very few game companies would like to do that, especially after seeing the unsuccessfullness of the dawn of war and space marine games. (Yes they are unsuccessful compared to most games that are sold) It is really hit and miss in the video game industry. And very few teams are willing to take that risk.

The first Dawn of War was a massive success, until the final expansion. Dawn of War 2 was still moderately successful and definitely made THQ money back. For the development time and money invested into Space Marine, it was one of the most successful games of the year it was released.

If you want me to pull up figures, I can. They didn't sell Starcraft 2 numbers or Call of Duty numbers, but then again, few games ever do.

Ya know what, screw it. I'm not going to engage on this one.

This game isn't new, it's been around for years, it was announced eons ago. It was announced while i was still very active in warmachine, which was more than 3 years ago.

GW has done games, and it has not split their base.