Warhammer Visions review

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.

**H.B.M.C.**

Despite the length of time I've been in the HHHobby, I've never seen a Citadel Journal with my own eyes. I own every issue of Necromunda Magazine, but I've never seen a Citadel Journal.

**Compel**

Warhammer: Visions is not for everybody, granted. If you like gaming more than collecting or painting, then it's probably not for you, and that's fine. You don't have to buy it!

Actually, kinda yeah, until I got rather uppity on the phone with them, "having to buy it" is precisely how I'd put it.

My 'Direct Debit' for my next 3 issues of 'white dwarf' was charged on the Thursday, with Visions arriving on the Saturday.

Eventually I got told, "you'll need to phone your bank and claim the direct debit back, we won't contest it."

**narkuk**

In other news in no way connected with White Dwarf Weekly, - online free shipping on the GW website has gone from £20 to £40.

**Alpharius**

So, they asked for feedback and are giving out mostly cut-n-paste replies?

I'm not surprised, I guess, and I'm not sure what I did expect, but...

Alpharius wrote:

Hello!

I'm writing to you to express my displeasure with the new direction for "White Dwarf".

Now, I know that times change, and things move on, and forward.

But this?

Sadly, it seems as if it just follows the all too familiar trend at GW - Pay More to Get Less.

If you want to get everything you used to get in White Dwarf, the cost has...skyrocketed.

I just wish that GW would lose its irrational fear and hatred of the Internet, embrace their fan-base and get back to what made them the company they are today.

So, I'll remain a fan in the background, hopeful but not expectant, and wondering about what could have been.

Again.

Jes Bickham wrote:
Thanks for your email and your feedback. We've worked hard to being a great breadth of features in the new White Dwarf – in a given a week you can expect details on the latest releases, editorial columns, painting guides, modelling features, gaming articles, new rules, interviews with sculptors and writers, and more besides. We'll also be featuring Battle Reports and other things too – in a given month, it all adds up to much, much more content that that touches all aspects of the hobby than we were able to achieve in one issue of the 'old' White Dwarf. I hope you stick with us to see this.

Warhammer: Visions is not for everybody, granted. If you like gaming more than collecting or painting, then it's probably not for you, and that's fine. You don't have to buy it! It's for people that like to drool over high-quality photos of gorgeously-painted miniatures, and it's the result of a lot of hard work by our photographers and design team – we're really pleased with it and from the feedback we've already had, the people that really like it are the people we're aiming it at.

Change is always a tricky thing, especially, when it comes with associated costs. But I hope you'll give both the new White Dwarf and Warhammer: Visions another chance in the future.

All the best and thanks again for your email,

Jes

**puma713**

Alpharius wrote:
So, they asked for feedback and are giving out mostly cut-n-paste replies?

Jes Bickham wrote:
Thanks for your email and your feedback. We've worked hard to being a great breadth of features in the new White Dwarf – in a given a week you can expect details on the latest releases, editorial columns, painting guides, modelling features, gaming articles, new rules, interviews with sculptors and writers, and more besides. We'll also be featuring Battle Reports and other things too – in a given month, it all adds up to much, much more content that that touches all aspects of the hobby than we were able to achieve in one issue of the 'old' White Dwarf. I hope you stick with us to see this.

Warhammer: Visions is not for everybody, granted. If you like gaming more than collecting or painting, then it's probably not for you, and that's fine. You don't have to buy it! It's for people that like to drool over high-quality photos of gorgeously-painted miniatures, and it's the result of a lot of hard work by our photographers and design team – we're really pleased with it and from the feedback we've already had, the people that really like it are the people we're aiming it at.

Change is always a tricky thing, especially, when it comes with associated costs. But I hope you'll give both the new White Dwarf and Warhammer: Visions another chance in the future.

All the best and thanks again for your email,

Jes

That is the exact email posted previously in this thread isn't it? Could just be set on auto-reply. They might as well just say, "Thank you for your email. We appreciate our customers' feedback. As you can imagine, we get a lot of feedback on a day-to-day basis. So, for improved efficiency, we have forwarded your email directly to the Recycle Bin. All the best!"

**Alpharius**

Yeah, that's what I figured.

Not sure why they asked for feedback or what they're getting out of it...

**Medium of Death**

They could just be gauging the volume of negative feedback that they are getting. I'd imagine that they are fairly swamped with emails regarding this latest decision.

**Flashman**

Alpharius wrote:
Yeah, that's what I figured.

Not sure why they asked for feedback or what they're getting out of it...

I'm sure they can get all the feedback they want by a cursory glance at the interwebs... but of course they'd never peruse these sites would they

I vaguely recall Dakka Dakka being mentioned in White Dwarf once many years ago as being a great place to discuss and explore the games further. Am I wrong? Other sites like Bolter and Chainsword and Druchii.net have definitely had a name drop in the distant past.

**Da Boss**

Hah! Man. Copy-paste responses, excellent.

**Ugavine**

I'm usually a staunch defender of GW, I have no problem with their prices or models. But Visions? £7.50 for a load of pictures, I can do a Google search for that. Certainly not a product I'll be buying again any time soon.

**insaniak**

Kroothawk wrote:

That's the point. GW wants you to go to the store. If you buy just one infantry box, WD weekly has done its job, bought or not.

If you're going into the store and looking at the new releases, the magazine spotlighting those new releases is completely superfluous. It only 'did its job' if you came into the store because of the magazine... which there doesn't appear to be any reason to actually do.

If this was something that they were sending out to customers to encourage them to come into the store, that would be something. But selling something in store that tells people about the other stuff that you are selling right now is pointless.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

timetowaste85 wrote:
Wasn't citadel journal free? .

No, it was sold direct through GW mailorder (to begin with) and then I think Specialist Games took it over. It did appear in GW stores very briefly before the changeover to the individual Specialist magazines.

**H.B.M.C.**

Wow. They really are sending copypaste replies regardless of what you right. I'd actually reply to their copypaste and ask them for something less generic.

**Darkseid**

Ugavine wrote:
I'm usually a staunch defender of GW, I have no problem with their prices or models. But Visions? £7.50 for a load of pictures, I can do a Google search for that. Certainly not a product I'll be buying again any time soon.

I wonder how long will it take for GW to issue a policy that says pictures of their models are only allowed to be posted in GW approved media (ie their own website, WD and visions), so we will have to buy visions to be able to look at painted miniatures?

**puma713**

Darkseid wrote:
Ugavine wrote:
I'm usually a staunch defender of GW, I have no problem with their prices or models. But Visions? £7.50 for a load of pictures, I can do a Google search for that. Certainly not a product I'll be buying again any time soon.

I wonder how long will it take for GW to issue a policy that says pictures of their models are only allowed to be posted in GW approved media (ie their own website, WD and visions), so we will have to buy visions to be able to look at painted miniatures?

You know, there is a small part of me that wonders if, in the meeting about Warhammer: Visions, that this was their answer to sites like Cool Mini or Not. A small part of me wonders if they're so deluded to think that "what the customer really wants" is some form of media showing them how the Studio presents models and that that will grab the demographic of modellers and collectors that comprise the traffic to those sites. That there are groups of screaming fans out there yearning for a picture book instead of being forced to visit free sites like Dakka and CMON.

"These people WANT to spend their money on a pictorial!! Just look at how many of them are frequenting these picture-sites!!"

**loki old fart**

Darkseid wrote:
Ugavine wrote:
I'm usually a staunch defender of GW, I have no problem with their prices or models. But Visions? £7.50 for a load of pictures, I can do a Google search for that. Certainly not a product I'll be buying again any time soon.

I wonder how long will it take for GW to issue a policy that says pictures of their models are only allowed to be posted in GW approved media (ie their own website, WD and visions), so we will have to buy visions to be able to look at painted miniatures?

Sad to say it might happen.

**Dynamix**

loki old fart wrote:
Darkseid wrote:
Ugavine wrote:
I'm usually a staunch defender of GW, I have no problem with their prices or models. But Visions? £7.50 for a load of pictures, I can do a Google search for that. Certainly not a product I'll be buying again any time soon.

I wonder how long will it take for GW to issue a policy that says pictures of their models are only allowed to be posted in GW approved media (ie their own website, WD and visions), so we will have to buy visions to be able to look at painted miniatures?

Sad to say it might happen.

Like to see GW try and make that stick!

**Wayniac**

Dynamix wrote:
loki old fart wrote:
Darkseid wrote:
Ugavine wrote:
I'm usually a staunch defender of GW, I have no problem with their prices or models. But Visions? £7.50 for a load of pictures, I can do a Google search for that. Certainly not a product I'll be buying again any time soon.

I wonder how long will it take for GW to issue a policy that says pictures of their models are only allowed to be posted in GW approved media (ie their own website, WD and visions), so we will have to buy visions to be able to look at painted miniatures?

Sad to say it might happen.

Like to see GW try and make that stick!

The sad part is I could see them trying.

Suit: Sir, people hate our new Warhammer Visions magazine.
Kirby: How could they hate it?
Suit: Well, sir... they can see pictures just like it for free on those internet sites we pretend don't exist, and they tend to be better quality. And they can find out how to actually paint like that, versus just looking at the pretty pictures.
Kirby: Curse those internet sites! I know, we'll claim IP infringement for those sites showing our miniatures without our permission! That way the ONLY way anyone can see our miniatures is through publications that we control such as Warhammer Visions, our website and via our stores. That will show them!
Suit: Brilliant, sir! Everyone will have to buy Warhammer Visions now! What alternatives do they have?
Both: *cackling laughter*

**barnowl**

jonolikespie wrote:
puma713 wrote:
Jes Goodwin wrote:
Warhammer: Visions is not for everybody, granted. If you like gaming more than collecting or painting, then it's probably not for you

If you like gaming. Aren't they a game company? It's in their name...

So, if you like gaming and you were happy with the gaming magazine you were subscribed to, then what we've changed your subscription to probably isn't for you.

It's another push towards the whole 'we are a model company, not a rules company' thing.
If you look at the Chapterhouse case the people on the stand were only refering to their customers as 'collectors', not gamers or anything. GW's corporate culture is pushing the idea that people who buy GW products are collectors and those of us that play the games are the outliers as opposed to the norm.

I guess GW is just trying to get back to it roots. It was originally a model company riding TSR's coattails. Now it is riding WoTC's down the tubes.

**Dynamix**

Much as GW are quite zealous about their IP I dont believe GW would be as deluded to try this

**Compel**

Isn't the actual law around photographs of other artwork nebulous enough, that GW could get away with doing that, at least enough for websites to have to deal with take-down notices?

What was it the Beasts of War folk said? GW kept on issuing them notices about various rumours and things, each time they'd have to consult a lawyer and, each time, they'd be charged £300-£500 for it.

Truth be told, GW haven't gone that far yet - and, given the Spots the Space Marine debacle, probably will never. Still, it wouldn't surprise me if it was theoretically possible.

**puma713**

WayneTheGame wrote:

Suit: Sir, people hate our new Warhammer Visions magazine.
Kirby: How could they hate it?
Suit: Well, sir... they can see pictures just like it for free on those internet sites we pretend don't exist, and they tend to be better quality. And they can find out how to actually paint like that, versus just looking at the pretty pictures.
Kirby: Curse those internet sites! I know, we'll claim IP infringement for those sites showing our miniatures without our permission! That way the ONLY way anyone can see our miniatures is through publications that we control such as Warhammer Visions, our website and via our stores. That will show them!
Suit: Brilliant, sir! Everyone will have to buy Warhammer Visions now! What alternatives do they have?
Both: *cackling laughter*

Nah, no need to fret over this scenario. It is obvious that no one at GW corporate has any idea what we like and what we don't.

**Mathieu Raymond**

Flashman wrote:
Alpharius wrote:
Yeah, that's what I figured.

Not sure why they asked for feedback or what they're getting out of it...

I'm sure they can get all the feedback they want by a cursory glance at the interwebs... but of course they'd never peruse these sites would they

I vaguely recall Dakka Dakka being mentioned in White Dwarf once many years ago as being a great place to discuss and explore the games further. Am I wrong? Other sites like Bolter and Chainsword and Druchii.net have definitely had a name drop in the distant past.

In the 300th issue, there was an adeptus custodes pictorial which mentioned fan work, showed it in the mag, and listed the bolter and chains word and dakkadakka as resources. Funny how times change.

**Harriticus**

Waiting until GW takes down their email accounts altogether. New fangled internet!

Warhammer Visions certainly shows GW doesn't like/understand the internet.

**Howard A Treesong**

loki old fart wrote:
Darkseid wrote:
Ugavine wrote:
I'm usually a staunch defender of GW, I have no problem with their prices or models. But Visions? £7.50 for a load of pictures, I can do a Google search for that. Certainly not a product I'll be buying again any time soon.

I wonder how long will it take for GW to issue a policy that says pictures of their models are only allowed to be posted in GW approved media (ie their own website, WD and visions), so we will have to buy visions to be able to look at painted miniatures?

Sad to say it might happen.

No it won't. They can ask that people don't use their photos from their own website/books, but the public can always take photos of their own models. That's well under fair use.

**Pacific**

I don't think it's fair to expect Jes to create a new reply for each person to contact, after all it's basically going to be a variation of the same thing. I remember getting a hand-written letter reply from Gav Thorpe and Jervis Johnson, but that was probably 20 years ago so not really reasonable to expect in the age of the word processor!

Of course the worst thing is that he probably knows the level of the magazine, really agrees with everything that the fans are writing to express, but has his hands tied by the company logo on his shirt. Of such things are moves in the industry (and perhaps even a 'Jes Goodwin kickstarter'

) made..

On a related note, just looking at the Wayland games site showing the new dwarf releases in all of their glory *cough* http://www.waylandgames.co.uk/pre-orders/games-workshop/cat_531.html

I can't imagine that they are seriously trying to limit viewing over the internet of their miniatures, considering that they are visible on GW's own website no less?!

**filbert**

The editor of WD is called Jes Bickham, by the way, not Jes Goodwin. Jes Goodwin is a sculptor.

Thought I would reiterate that as several people have got the two conflated in this thread!

**NoggintheNog**

Pacific wrote:

On a related note, just looking at the Wayland games site showing the new dwarf releases in all of their glory *cough* http://www.waylandgames.co.uk/pre-orders/games-workshop/cat_531.html

I can't imagine that they are seriously trying to limit viewing over the internet of their miniatures, considering that they are visible on GW's own website no less?!

I think the best thing about that is the big 'deal of the day' banner at the side. Mantic Dwarf box for £11.99

Much respect to waylands marketing guy for that one.

**Hivefleet Oblivion**

Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
If you've ever been to higher end car dealership It reminds me of those stylized magazines they leave out in the waiting area, they are nothing but glossy high priced car photos.

BMW this is not.

If only!

Mrs Oblivion designs a customer publication for a car brand that\s much more upmarket than BMW, sends photographers out to Morocco, China, etc on 3 or 4 day shoots that might produce 8 or 10 photos. They climb mountains to get their stories. Not quite the same thing as climbing the stairs to the top floor of Warhammer world, and snapping 40 photos of the same diorama of models.

And their magazine is free.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

The most surprising thing about this is that...people are surprised. We all know how badly WD had been declining over the years, we seen how bad the last re-launch was, and now we're disappointed that visions was as about as visionary as sliced bread. Some people on here!

**Grimtuff**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The most surprising thing about this is that...people are surprised. We all know how badly WD had been declining over the years, we seen how bad the last re-launch was, and now we're disappointed that visions was as about as visionary as sliced bread. Some people on here!

I think you're misinterpreting there. People are not surprised it would be crap. That is a given. People are surprised at the sheer level of crap this has sunk to.