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.
So I heard this happened sometime back, and I am not sure why it happened, just that he has now started his own company. I had read somewhere, and I have no idea if this is true, that he kept getting promoted to the point where he wasnt doing anything. Not really sure what that meant, if he literally didnt have responsibility, or if he didnt like the responsibility he had (if he wasnt developing games).
But I was thinking about Warmaster the other day, and it made me think about all that he has had a direct influence on... Warhammer, 40k, Epic 2nd Edition, Necromunda, LOTR, Warmaster as mentioned, and whatever else I am leaving out. Thats a GIGANTIC influence on a company where they are still selling three games that he had a direct influence in pulling out of his own head. But even the other games were very creative too, and fun to play.
Now, I think what GW has done lately with 40k is brilliant, even tho I have little interest in spending the kinds of money that most of you guys do. Not necessarily brilliant with the rules, but the imagery, the models, the setting, etc. There are some talented guys working at GW. I dont follow Warhammer, but a quick look on their site and I am impressed with those models too. I havent cared about the LOTR series of games since the Fellowship came out, and I am not sure who is playing The Hobbit if anyone is at all (I say that because it looks like the Escape from Goblin Town Limited Edition set is still available, whereas DVLE was gone in 5min).
So that being said, and I know GW is only focusing on 3 core products right now, but I imagine something has to change. LOTR will die. I am not sure what else is in store after it. But looking at the two one-offs GW has done, the remake of Space Hulk which would have been impossible to screwup, and the disappointing Dreadfleet, I wonder how good GW is at developing creative game systems. All they are doing is re-hashing what Rick started.
I look at all the various games being developed through Kickstarter, and it seems like GW has some competition in that whatever money is being spent on those projects, or other existing games, is money not being spent on GW, which could easily be the opposite, if they developed other games. I like variety, and sometimes dont even want to think about 40k, but thats really mostly what GW has to offer right now. But if they said, ok lets develop a new game and ruleset, who would do it? If just seems they are really hit and miss, even with 40k, on making people as excited about games as they had been previously. I wonder if thats due to the guys who had vision leaving.
I dont play all of the games Rick developed, but it seems to me GW wouldnt be where they are today without him. And I kinda wonder where they will be 10 years from now. Or at least, what they will have to offer.
He certainly had an impact, but GW was hardly a one-man company. Plus, priestly may have begun 40k, but he certainly wasn't the only person working on it over the last 20 years, and 40k is rather bigger now than it once was.
In any case, 40k has always had competition. New companies pop up in the spring of excitement, and then wither like summer grass, but 40k endures.
I find it rather telling, because wasn't he a co-owner or founder or something? He was certainly a top dog, and to have your top guy leave to found his own company that competes with you, is kinda like Bill Gates leaving Microsoft to start a new software company that competes with Windows.
Ailaros wrote: He certainly had an impact, but GW was hardly a one-man company. Plus, priestly may have begun 40k, but he certainly wasn't the only person working on it over the last 20 years, and 40k is rather bigger now than it once was.
Oh I understand this, dont get me wrong, and I think some creative minds have come in and added to it, and its not like I am a huge fan of Rogue Trader either. On its own its terrible. I didnt love 40k until 2nd ed came out. But I mean, just the mindset to create that. Make something from nothing. I see that in 40k, Necromunda, Warmaster, LOTR. Not just developing the game concepts, but the mechanics. They are all his.
I have a few others I am eternally thankful for, like Nigel for developing Man O War, and Jervis AT/SM1, but it was SM2 when Jervis teamed up with Rick, and the result was the most popular version of Epic. I dont know who influenced what rules that made up the game, but its no coincidence to me that the game was hugely popular, and that the other Epic games to follow without him were duds.
He might be the greatest game designer in modern history. If not by the game mechanics, then at least by vision. And I only say that since i dont know very many names.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/14 19:19:12
Well, in a way, it's a sign of a mature company. Small companies take cheap and easy ideas and try things out on shoestring budgets, sees what sticks, and then runs as quickly as it can with it. Larger companies, not so much.
I mean, look at microsoft. What's the last genuinely inventive thing they've done? Powerpoint? That doesn't mean that microsoft is on the brink of disaster, it just means that it's matured into a company where it's better to let the little guys take all the risk and then buy out those who succeed and focus on being a distribution company.
Saying that GW has competitors is like saying that Microsoft has competitors because of the existence of Linux. Linux users will argue you blue in the face about how much better Linux is, but that doesn't change the fact that most people use windows, and Microsoft is very much still in business.
It's hard period to make people excited about something they have been doing for a long time.
Circle of life. The trick is keeping new blood flowing into something like tabletop gaming with all the tablets and computers and crap kids have these days. I got into TT gaming because it was something to do for hours at a time on weekends. Kids today have so much more to do. <shrug>
"If the application of force does not solve a problem; apply more force."
Rick Priestley, with Bryan Ansell and Richard Hailliwell, designed the miniatures game Warhammer Fantasy Battle for Games Workshop. The idea of the Black Library evolved under the guidance of Priestley, Andy Jones, and Marc Gascoigne into the magazine Inferno! which debuted in July 1997. Priestley also designed the large-scale combat game Warmaster (2000).
Rick Priestley is the principal writer and designer of the original edition of Warhammer 40,000 (Rogue Trader) and worked extensively on various Warhammer 40,000 rulebooks and sourcebooks since, including the fourth edition of Warhammer 40,000. In the words of Andy Chambers, he is "The original Emperor of the Warhammer 40,000 universe".
In 2010, an accountant and a shampoo manager found he was expendable.
About 2 years later, the accountant found the shampoo manager expendable
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/03/16 09:59:39
Priestly left. Happens. For the most part, 40K prospered since. This isn't like Apple being down in the gutters without Steve Jobs or Starbucks on its knees begging Howard Schulz to come back.
Whatever was "lost" with Rick Priestly was either replaceable or expendable or simply not important for the success and enjoyment of Warhammer 40K.
The game currently is certainly infinitely superior to the 3rd and 4th Edition mess that carried Priestly's name. Rogue Trader and 2nd Edition are great for indulging your nostalgia, but if they'd be published now, without the "emotional baggage", they'd be torn apart mercilessly by the interwebs.
Gitsmasher wrote: Why is it a bad thing he left on his own terms? That's the difference between an employee and a slave.
It's not a bad thing, but it's somewhat telling that somebody so invested in the company, who basically built it up, left on his own terms. That could indicate that he disagreed with the direction they were going so vehemently that he couldn't stay and deal with it (and his comments indicate this might have been the case) and got out rather than see the walls crumble around him.
That's my interpretation anyways. We've seen the direction the game is going, and perhaps Mr. Priestly thought that was a mistake.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/16 12:55:14
That's my interpretation anyways. We've seen the direction the game is going, and perhaps Mr. Priestly thought that was a mistake.
We've also seen the kind of sci-fi miniatures game Mr. Priestly envisions with Gates of Antares. I am happy 40K isn't going that way.
I haven't seen much about Gates of Antares but I was looking at Bolt Action and it seemed to be pretty solid and much closer to "old" 40k (mostly Infantry backed up by a tank or two). The concept of Order Dice is pretty good IMO. Personally, I'd rather play Sci-Fi Bolt Action than 40k nowadays, just too much going on in 40k to make any sense of it. It's lost its focus.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/16 13:29:10
I haven't seen much about Gates of Antares but I was looking at Bolt Action and it seemed to be pretty solid and much closer to "old" 40k (mostly Infantry backed up by a tank or two). The concept of Order Dice is pretty good IMO. Personally, I'd rather play Sci-Fi Bolt Action than 40k nowadays, just too much going on in 40k to make any sense of it. It's lost its focus.
Well, but Bolt Action is at least 50% Alessio Cavatore, who (in my humble opinion) was/is a more talented game designer than Rick Priestly ever was.
Gates of Antares is 99% Priestly, and it's a mess (like moving to a D10 system for variety, but keeping ranges, distances, stats, etc.. on a scale of 6, or multiples of 6, for no good reason,... long convoluted tables for different weapons, etc,, etc..).
I am not saying Rick Priestly didn't make worthy contributions to Bolt Action. But the difference between Bolt Action and GoA is a good reason why Rick Priestly needs "a strong hand" to guide him/temper his ideas, etc.. . He's not "lead-designer" material.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/16 13:35:10
Gitsmasher wrote:Why is it a bad thing he left on his own terms?
He left alright, but certainly not on his own terms.
Zweischneid wrote:The game currently is certainly infinitely superior to the 3rd and 4th Edition mess that carried Priestly's name.
If you like Titans and Apocalypse formations pushed down your thoat, D-weapons in standard games, a flood of lazy copy-paste digital products, one unit Codices, Codices that autolose after turn 1, Tau being battle brothers with Space marines, Imperial Guard renamed Aster Militieroriatis, new editions maybe every 1.5 years, fleeing customers, falling revenue, falling share prices that is
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/16 18:31:16
Ailaros wrote: I mean, look at microsoft. What's the last genuinely inventive thing they've done? Powerpoint? That doesn't mean that microsoft is on the brink of disaster, it just means that it's matured into a company where it's better to let the little guys take all the risk and then buy out those who succeed and focus on being a distribution company.
Except you're ignoring two key differences in that comparison:
1) Microsoft is still making lots of money, and shows no sign of stopping. GW, on the other hand, is seeing its profits and, more importantly, its sales volume, decline while all signs point to that decline continuing. If you're doing well it makes sense to be conservative, keep doing what you're doing, and let someone else take all of the risks. But if your current approach isn't working then it's absolutely stupid to refuse to take risks that might save the company.
2) GW isn't buying out the successful companies. Other companies do new and interesting stuff, while GW continues to publish garbage rules and inconsistent models. They've shown no interest in even learning from their competition
Saying that GW has competitors is like saying that Microsoft has competitors because of the existence of Linux. Linux users will argue you blue in the face about how much better Linux is, but that doesn't change the fact that most people use windows, and Microsoft is very much still in business.
Except GW is in serious trouble, while Microsoft isn't. Linux still hasn't made any meaningful impact on the mainstream software market, but GW's competition is busy taking market share away from GW.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
As much as I love the D66 Serious Injury Table (and I really do), 40K and it's specialist friends draw me in because I love the fluff, art and the models. Rick Priestly took none of that with him when he left. One quick glance at Beyond the Gates of Anatres tells me that I don't like the fluff, art and (almost entirely) the models.
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-)
Bottle wrote:As much as I love the D66 Serious Injury Table (and I really do), 40K and it's specialist friends draw me in because I love the fluff, art and the models. Rick Priestly took none of that with him when he left.
Zweischneid wrote: Alessio Cavatore, who (in my humble opinion) was/is a more talented game designer than Rick Priestly ever was.
Right.
I'd especially note with Cavatore, though, that Kings of War is basically just a stripped down, oversimplified, blander version of WHFB. Both Priestly and Cavatore thought they could make a better game just by making it more streamlined and balanced. It turns out, though, that's not what people want from 40k. They made better games that were, in the end, worse games.
Ailaros wrote: It turns out, though, that's not what people want from 40k. They made better games that were, in the end, worse games.
You're ignoring the importance of the fluff and GW's retail dominance. The two things people want from 40k are space marines and tons of opponents. A game failing to take over GW's market doesn't necessarily mean the game isn't as good if you only consider the game itself.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I'd especially note with Cavatore, though, that Kings of War is basically just a stripped down, oversimplified, blander version of WHFB. Both Priestly and Cavatore thought they could make a better game just by making it more streamlined and balanced. It turns out, though, that's not what people want from 40k. They made better games that were, in the end, worse games.
Well, Kings of War IS a very good game.
Of course, nobody cares about it, no matter how much the internet whines about wanting 40K/WFB to be more balanced, uncluttered, smoother-to-play, etc.., they never put their money where their mouth is (and GW knows it, whereas Priestly / Cavatore probably didn't). But that isn't really a fault of the Game Designers. It just shows how irrelevant "balanced" game design is to this hobby.
Hell, throughout the recent DreadBall Kickstarter, people kept talking themselves into how "balanced" DreadBall is, when it isn't. Same with X-Wing.
People are amazingly good at this whole self-hypnosis thing. If they WANT a game to be good, because they empathize with the company/makers/etc.., they will perceive it as "good" (by whatever terms they define good). If they WANT a game to be bad, because they dislike the company behind it, no evidence of any kind will sway them. The actual quality of the game-rules arguably doesn't even enter the equation.
Zweischneid wrote: But that isn't really a fault of the Game Designers. It just shows how irrelevant "balanced" game design is to this hobby.
You mean it's hard to get into a new game, even when it's a great game, if you have to also get all of your friends to start playing at the same time? And people will continue playing bad games like 40k just because there are plenty of other players and it's better to play a bad game than no game at all?
*shock*
Hell, throughout the recent DreadBall Kickstarter, people kept talking themselves into how "balanced" DreadBall is, when it isn't. Same with X-Wing.
Lol, no. X-Wing might not be perfectly balanced, but it's way better than 40k can even dream of.
People are amazingly good at this whole self-hypnosis thing. If they WANT a game to be good, because they empathize with the company/makers/etc.., they will perceive it as "good" (by whatever terms they define good). If they WANT a game to be bad, because they dislike the company behind it, no evidence of any kind will sway them. The actual quality of the game-rules arguably doesn't even enter the equation.
You've got your cause and effect backwards. People like other companies because they produce good games (at least in the opinion of their fans). People hate GW because GW produces awful games and has business practices best described as "holy these people are stupid". I know you'll never admit it, but we don't need to dislike the company behind 40k to find reasons why it's a bad game.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
You've got your cause and effect backwards. People like other companies because they produce good games (at least in the opinion of their fans). People hate GW because GW produces awful games and has business practices best described as "holy these people are stupid". I know you'll never admit it, but we don't need to dislike the company behind 40k to find reasons why it's a bad game.
Shrug. We've been over this. X-Wing is horribly balance for a game that only has .. what? .. 8 or 9 different gaming piece to choose from, with a total of 2 factions? With a far more minimalist game-play than 40K. Yes, 40K has more issues, because there are trillions more variables interacting with each other. But for the simple game X-Wing is, it's utterly out of whack.
And you don't have to stick with gaming. People hate Walmart with a passion, and it still goes from strength to strength...
Also, I can see why you and other people don't like 40K, etc.., I don't agree with these reasons and I happen to like 40K. That doesn't mean I don't understand your criticisms. The things is, it doesn't matter if you or a million other people find the 40K rules to be atrocious. It's not relevant to the larger picture.
Zweischneid wrote: We've been over this. X-Wing is horribly balance for a game that only has .. what? .. 8 or 9 different gaming piece to choose from, with a total of 2 factions? With a far more minimalist game-play than 40K.
Yeah, we've been over it. You've ignored tournament results (where 3-4 ship rebel lists are winning) and declared any imperial list with more than four ships a "swarm" to "prove" that swarms are overpowered. You're still wrong.
Yes, 40K has more issues, because there are trillions more variables interacting with each other.
Not really. 40k isn't really a very complicated game, and it's full of balance mistakes that anyone who even attempted to playtest the game would have caught and fixed. 40k isn't broken because it's impossible to do better, it's broken because GW doesn't give a about making a good game.
Also, MTG has way more interactions than 40k and yet it's a well-balanced game with no potential for rule arguments that last beyond citing a page number from the rulebook where an indisputable answer is given. Stop making excuses for GW's lazy and incompetent writers.
There is no reason that GW should be different.
How about "because, unlike many of those hated companies, GW doesn't provide a necessary service that you can't easily go without"? If your phone company sucks you can hate them all you like, but you're still going to buy phone service from them because you don't have any real choice (presumably the "alternatives" suck just as much). If you're poor you can hate Walmart all you like, but you're probably going to buy from them anyway because they sell cheap stuff. Etc. GW, on the other hand, isn't in that position. They sell a luxury item with plenty of competition, if their customers hate them then those customers will leave.
And hey, guess what's happening to GW: declining market share, declining sales volume, and declining profits. Looks like customers are speaking with their wallets.
That doesn't mean I don't understand your criticisms.
You really don't, as you've demonstrated every time you try to claim that 40k couldn't be better without ruining it and ignore any argument otherwise.
The things is, it doesn't matter if you or a million other people find the 40K rules to be atrocious. It's not relevant to the larger picture.
You're right. The larger picture is that GW sells toys to young children who never play the game, so it doesn't matter if the rules suck as long as there's the idea of a game to get kids to buy starter sets. The fact that GW is content to throw away all of their other customers and run the IP into the ground does not mean that we have to consider them an example of a successful gaming business.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/17 10:36:45
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
And hey, guess what's happening to GW: declining market share, declining sales volume, and declining profits. Looks like customers are speaking with their wallets.
Again. possibly.
GW sales declined. GW is in a funk. There is a cause for that decline.
This cause could possibly be customer dissatisfaction (with the rules in particular).
But I wouldn't go so far as to say this must be the reason. Not least because customers hated the rules for years, even when GW was doing just fine. There are many, many possible causes (including possibly the ones mentioned by Tom Kirby in the financials).
I'd simply be wary of jumping to the one conclusion that vindicates your personal bias.
All I am saying
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/17 10:45:46
Wow this is the best constructed and least personal version of this argument ive ever heard on both sides of the fence. I would like to take the time to thank you all for keeping it classy.
GW has been on a decline in my state as a whole. There was a great rally with 6th. The first three dexs solidified it. Literally every release since has lost players. Armies are being sold. Its not a lot of F this game and rage quit. Its a loss of enthusiasm and interest with each release. People are packing their armies and putting them away or on ebay. There is a huge problem in that company for this to be the case. To put it back on topic, can that be traced to the OPs question?
You say you hate it but you wont do anything about it? What the serious ork?
As a long term DakkaDakka member I have to say that according to my observation, dissatisfaction with GW has been increasing for several years and has reached a peak with the 6th edition allies, D weapons and so on.
I agree kilkrazy. They seem to run on the fear that if they're not moving forward they will stagnate and die. Forward is good regardless of direction. Then they find that they have alienated their base while ignoring the fact their bunny petting product snapped some girls neck. I want them to be good, but I cant defend them without feeling like I am in the corner eating paste.
The bigger question is: is there hope?
You say you hate it but you wont do anything about it? What the serious ork?
these people are stupid". I know you'll never admit it, but we don't need to dislike the company behind 