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.
GW is doing things we don't need them to, but isn't doing things we need them to do.
Or..
"they're expecting us to buy what they make, rather than making what we'll buy."
When I coined that, I had no idea how accurate I apparently was. It's a total bass ackwards way of running a business, but it explains so much.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Well I highly doubt it has been selling well and it is what, 3 of the larger sized frames? I'd wager it hasn't and isn't expected to for a long time.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
Kilkrazy wrote: When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
I suspect that I am going to be quoting this a lot.
Hell - when I was playing with toy soldiers I came up with rules to force some kind of structure. Not much of a rule set - roll a D6, on a high die the green army man dies, on a low die the grey army man dies.... Range was one foot. (A year later I played my first real wargame'.)
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
GW is doing things we don't need them to, but isn't doing things we need them to do.
Or..
"they're expecting us to buy what they make, rather than making what we'll buy."
When I coined that, I had no idea how accurate I apparently was. It's a total bass ackwards way of running a business, but it explains so much.
You know, GW reminds me a good bit of those failing restaurants on Kitchen Nightmares (UK or USA version), in the sense that they have this grand vision of what they want to do, and are barreling straight forward with it ignoring all the flaws and ignoring what their customers actually want. The main difference is that GW has gotten lucky in that they were basically the only restaurant in town for 20+ years so people had no choice but to eat there even if the food's quality dropped but prices went up, and even if the special of the day was random scraps thrown together into a stew, and people who asked for a balanced meal were thrown out by the people who liked that they could have dessert and dinner at the same time and skip the vegetables.
The point behind that anecdote was that on Kitchen Nightmares, what has to be drilled into the businesspeople's heads is that just because YOU want to have let's say a fine dining restaurant, your customers might want a diner instead, and if you don't provide that experience then somebody else will. While the pipe dream would be well-balanced rules and about a 50% price decrease, that's also unrealistic. What's not unrealistic IMO though is GW realizing that they need to offer more value for the price, offer bundles to give a discount without actually giving a discount, and actually creating rules that can appeal to all players not just the niche they think everyone fits into. Case in point their battleforces and army deals should be full blown armies at a decent level (battleforces should be ~750 points) to make a good staring point for someone, not generally still require a couple of hundred extra bucks to actually use.
Personally, one of the most egregious things GW has done, one that really stands out in my mind as proof the company has lost their way, is the fact that all of the books, codexes and the like used to include a basic painting guide for some of the units - even if it was at barely beginner level with just basecoats. Then they stopped that, and have the gall to charge extra for a "How to Paint X" book, usually digital only.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/05/31 21:05:34
GW is doing things we don't need them to, but isn't doing things we need them to do.
Or..
"they're expecting us to buy what they make, rather than making what we'll buy."
When I coined that, I had no idea how accurate I apparently was. It's a total bass ackwards way of running a business, but it explains so much.
You know, GW reminds me a good bit of those failing restaurants on Kitchen Nightmares (UK or USA version), in the sense that they have this grand vision of what they want to do, and are barreling straight forward with it ignoring all the flaws and ignoring what their customers actually want. The main difference is that GW has gotten lucky in that they were basically the only restaurant in town for 20+ years so people had no choice but to eat there even if the food's quality dropped but prices went up, and even if the special of the day was random scraps thrown together into a stew, and people who asked for a balanced meal were thrown out by the people who liked that they could have dessert and dinner at the same time and skip the vegetables.
The point behind that anecdote was that on Kitchen Nightmares, what has to be drilled into the businesspeople's heads is that just because YOU want to have let's say a fine dining restaurant, your customers might want a diner instead, and if you don't provide that experience then somebody else will. While the pipe dream would be well-balanced rules and about a 50% price decrease, that's also unrealistic. What's not unrealistic IMO though is GW realizing that they need to offer more value for the price, offer bundles to give a discount without actually giving a discount, and actually creating rules that can appeal to all players not just the niche they think everyone fits into. Case in point their battleforces and army deals should be full blown armies at a decent level (battleforces should be ~750 points) to make a good staring point for someone, not generally still require a couple of hundred extra bucks to actually use.
Personally, one of the most egregious things GW has done, one that really stands out in my mind as proof the company has lost their way, is the fact that all of the books, codexes and the like used to include a basic painting guide for some of the units - even if it was at barely beginner level with just basecoats. Then they stopped that, and have the gall to charge extra for a "How to Paint X" book, usually digital only.
I dunno, I just spent the past few hours assembling the Warmachine 2 player battle box, and I can tell you that I model wise, I don't really feel like it's a better value. It seems like about the same dollar-to-plastic ratio that I paid with GW.
When I do feel like it's a huge value, however, is when I read the concise, clear rules, and realize that rulebook only costs $30.
GW's costs would be tolerable if the game didn't suck.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
In my case I have extensive Tau and Tyranid armies built up from 4th edition onwards, as well as SM and IG models from 30 years ago, but if I want to play now I need to find £120 for the new rules and (already out of date) codexes, not counting any data slates or new models that have appeared since 5th edition slightly under two years ago. And the Psychic Cards my armies can't use and the Objective Cards I don't like.
So probably well over £200 just to keep playing with now incomplete and uncompetitive armies.
Kilkrazy wrote: In my case I have extensive Tau and Tyranid armies built up from 4th edition onwards, as well as SM and IG models from 30 years ago, but if I want to play now I need to find £120 for the new rules and (already out of date) codexes, not counting any data slates or new models that have appeared since 5th edition slightly under two years ago. And the Psychic Cards my armies can't use and the Objective Cards I don't like.
So probably well over £200 just to keep playing with now incomplete and uncompetitive armies.
What is it like for new beginners?
Someone did the math (roughly) in the "how desperate is GW" thread.
Rules book. Codex Battle force Hobby starter set (paints, brush, glue) Dice Tape measure
$345.75 US retail.
That's how bad it is for new beginners, and that's the entry-level "Baby's First 40k Game" level for tutorial-level games. And as I said in that thread, I could buy a 35-point Warmachine army (standard level games) including hobby supplies for roughly the same price.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/05/31 22:51:36
slowthar wrote: I dunno, I just spent the past few hours assembling the Warmachine 2 player battle box, and I can tell you that I model wise, I don't really feel like it's a better value. It seems like about the same dollar-to-plastic ratio that I paid with GW.
Yeah but you can play with that. In fact, two players can play with that. Individual comparisons between 40K and Warmachine are largely useless as you don't need 12 Warjacks in an army and 60+ infantry to play a game of Warmachine.
All the doom and gloom only hurts the hobby more. I don't think people are going to want to buy product to play if there is mass hysteria saying the company is failing. That's all I have heard since 6th hit the shelves. Hopefully this doom and gloom ends.
slowthar wrote: I dunno, I just spent the past few hours assembling the Warmachine 2 player battle box, and I can tell you that I model wise, I don't really feel like it's a better value. It seems like about the same dollar-to-plastic ratio that I paid with GW.
Yeah but you can play with that. In fact, two players can play with that. Individual comparisons between 40K and Warmachine are largely useless as you don't need 12 Warjacks in an army and 60+ infantry to play a game of Warmachine.
Warmachine and hordes is an entirely different point value system. Think of a jack or beast as maybe a dreadnought or a wraith lord. That game also has it's 5-10 man squads as well. It also has a lot of little individual models. The quality of PP plastic is horrendous and the mold lines and it's placement is in the worst areas and all over the mini.
GW has the best product on the market I'd say as far as quality and mold lines go.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/01 02:21:34
Kal-El wrote: GW has the best product on the market I'd say as far as quality and mold lines go.
Have you bought any of the new WGF plastics such as the WWX or Dreamforge Games stuff? They're superior to GW stuff imo. New GW plastics are great - I'm really happy with the new tacticals and stern/vanguard vet kits. But the WGF kits I've got have been better.
---
I think Warmachine (and Deadzone, KoW, Dreadball, X-Wing etc) are good to compare to GW rules-wise. They all seem to have much better playtested rules with better balancing. Comparisons to $$ required I think has to be taken with a grain of salt given the disparity in models required to play games. You need more models to play 40k, so you will of course pay more in that regard. I think your best bet is breaking down what you're looking at, and also excluding hobby materials required such as paints as that is easily sourced outside or borrowed to begin with: - Pricing and availibility of starter kits. - Pricing of rules if separate from starter kits. - Total price for a baseline army. - Total price for a "full" army - Expected yearly outlays to keep up to date.
GWs problems come down to overpriced rules and overpriced minis, both by something like 40% on average. Hard plastic should not cost as much as GW charges, especially at the quaantities they produce of it. Not to mention the quantities that would be demanded if it were 40% cheaper. I would happily have armies for all factions at that price as yes, I love the 40K setting (if they don't continue to rape the fluff) and the models are in general great (Khornemower, Taurox etc. aside).
GW has recently started to do decent value (from US discounters at least) starter kits, with the initial SM Strike Force and now the Strike Force Ultra. If they continue to go this route, I will be pretty happy - though I still think it could use more of a baseline price drop. Even fully discounted with bundle and discounter ddiscounts, termies are $6 a piece for hard plastic - that's resin mini territory.
GW always sells itself as a miniature company. That would be great - they should release free rules in this case imo. Free rules would greatly reduce the barriers to entry and bring in a lot more new blood. They'll lose the rulebook sales, but greatly gain in model sales. This would improve their market share by cannibalizing other miniature games, and GW really likes their market share which has been dwindling.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/01 02:47:52
The "doom and gloom" is because the company is, to be frank, ass backwards in its business practices. What they NEED is for people to not want to buy their products, so they'll get the kick in the ass they need to fix the major issues.
Having recently gone to Warmachine, I will agree that sometimes the mold lines are in annoying places (I especially hate when there's this big chunk still attached that has to be carved off), but overall I find their quality to be just as good as GW without the insane and IMO unnecessary level of detail on 28mm figures. The key argument here is that 40k stands alone as a game where you need several hundred dollars just to get started at the entry level. Every other game out there the buy-in is very low so its easier for new people to get started as they won't have to drop a hefty amount of cash just to play beginner-level games.
Its not the points values that we're talking about, it's the fact if somebody new wants to get into Warmachine, their buy-in is approximately $85 (rulebook + Battlegroup for their faction) and they can get started with beginner-level games (it's a bit more if you factor in supplies, but let's assume no supplies and just glue to assemble) or get started in a Journeyman League, and to top it off the figures overall end up cheaper when you're starting because you need less of them and many of them are small groups, not big units (and the big units run $50 for basically ever option you could field with them, and you only need one box typically versus GW's $40 for one box with limited options that you need 2+ of anyways).
In comparison, GW's *rules* are $85 alone, and then a starter army is likely another $100+, and to get to the basic level is probably another $100 depending on what you're playing. So you're looking at a sizeable investment just to get started playing, and that's not even factoring in the general issues with the rules and the meta - if your meta only plays 2k point games, then you're screwed (and it can happen, my local area doesn't like to go under 1850 as near as I can tell)
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/06/01 02:45:19
Kal-El wrote: All the doom and gloom only hurts the hobby more. I don't think people are going to want to buy product to play if there is mass hysteria saying the company is failing. That's all I have heard since 6th hit the shelves. Hopefully this doom and gloom ends.
Just play the game and support the hobby IMO.
What utter tripe.
GW nor Warhammer are "the hobby" which, let's be honest, is actually what you're referring to. If the largest company with the most widely played game in the hobby has contrived to allow it's utter dominance in the market to atrophy to the point where "a vocal minority" on the Internet can hurt sales (and which is it? seems those that argue in favour of GW simultaneously attribute anyone criticising as a minority and with the potential to damage their "hhhobby." It can't be both) then they have nobody to blame but themselves.
slowthar wrote: I dunno, I just spent the past few hours assembling the Warmachine 2 player battle box, and I can tell you that I model wise, I don't really feel like it's a better value. It seems like about the same dollar-to-plastic ratio that I paid with GW.
Yeah but you can play with that. In fact, two players can play with that. Individual comparisons between 40K and Warmachine are largely useless as you don't need 12 Warjacks in an army and 60+ infantry to play a game of Warmachine.
Warmachine and hordes is an entirely different point value system. Think of a jack or beast as maybe a dreadnought or a wraith lord. That game also has it's 5-10 man squads as well. It also has a lot of little individual models. The quality of PP plastic is horrendous and the mold lines and it's placement is in the worst areas and all over the mini.
GW has the best product on the market I'd say as far as quality and mold lines go.
You'll find few criticising the technical quality of GW models (aesthetic is subjective and a pointless discussion) but I think you'll find "but mold lines!" isn't an argument you'll get much success with, when people are paying less for a viable army (points are totally arbitrary, investment to get a playable, viable force is the best, and only true, measure of how expensive a game is to the player) with a less, shall we say, controversial? ruleset.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/01 02:43:01
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Kal-El wrote: Warmachine and hordes is an entirely different point value system. Think of a jack or beast as maybe a dreadnought or a wraith lord. That game also has it's 5-10 man squads as well. It also has a lot of little individual models. The quality of PP plastic is horrendous and the mold lines and it's placement is in the worst areas and all over the mini.
GW has the best product on the market I'd say as far as quality and mold lines go.
Where they're great comparisons is that they're both wargames. I agree on PP models, they're terrible and the material is iffy at best. I like the aesthetic well enough but the execution leaves something to be desired. I do, however, love the rules and the quick game play. There's something to be said for clearly written rules. I wonder if the people that write GW's rules actually ever play the game anymore or just put models on the table, take a few pictures then write their "narrative"..
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
This is the price for a 35-point Warmachine Khador army, which is generally the normal size for games outside of tournaments:
Warmachine MkII Rulebook - $29.99 Forces of Warmachine: Khador - $34.99 Khador Battlegroup (Sorscha, Juggernaut, Destroyer) - $49.99 --- You can play basic games to learn here and start in a Journeyman League Widowmakers - $19.99 --- You can play beginner-level games here Winter Guard Infantry (Leader, 9 Grunts, 3 Rocketeers) - $49.99 Winter Guard Officer & Standard Bearer - $12.99 Kovnik Jozef Grigorovich - $10.99 Great Bears of Gallowswood - $37.99 Gorman di Wulfe (Merc) - $7.99 Khador Token Set - $11.99 Warmachine Template Set - $9.99 2x Khador Heavy Wreck Markers - 2x @ $9.99 = $19.98 Work Hobby Brush - $6.99 Fine Hobby Brush - $6.99 Primer - $9.99 Hobby Knife - $6.99 File Set - $8.99 Superglue - $6.99 Khador Colors Paint Set - $17.99
Comes to $361.80 USD, and that is including hobby supplies so this is from the perspective of somebody going from brand new "What's this Warmachine game?" to "I can play the majority of non-tournament games at my FLGS"
What would $360 get you if you were just starting out in 40k? Likely a lot less than the above (not counting picking up armies on eBay or the like), in fact likely closer to just the basic level of beginner-level games, not the normal size for the majority of games out there.
That, in a nutshell, is the issue. It costs more to get started in 40k than it does to have a good-sized collection (relatively speaking) for another, similar game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/01 02:50:22
Kal-El wrote: All the doom and gloom only hurts the hobby more. I don't think people are going to want to buy product to play if there is mass hysteria saying the company is failing. That's all I have heard since 6th hit the shelves. Hopefully this doom and gloom ends.
Trying to dismiss criticism of a company as well as those doing the criticising by characterising said criticism as "hysteria" is a bad way to start, son of Krypton.
Kal-El wrote: Just play the game and support the hobby IMO.
What hobby would that be? Miniature Wargaming, which is what it is, or the Games Workshop HHHobby, which is what GW thinks it is?
Kal-El wrote: Warmachine and hordes is an entirely different point value system. Think of a jack or beast as maybe a dreadnought or a wraith lord. That game also has it's 5-10 man squads as well. It also has a lot of little individual models.
So what? You still need a fraction of the model count to play an equivalent sized game.
Kal-El wrote: The quality of PP plastic is horrendous and the mold lines and it's placement is in the worst areas and all over the mini.
And herrings are also red!
Kal-El wrote: GW has the best product on the market I'd say as far as quality and mold lines go.
Excellent. Nothing to do with this conversation though. No one's going after GW's model quality and/or mold lines.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/01 02:51:17
Kal-El wrote: All the doom and gloom only hurts the hobby more. I don't think people are going to want to buy product to play if there is mass hysteria saying the company is failing. That's all I have heard since 6th hit the shelves. Hopefully this doom and gloom ends.
Trying to dismiss criticism of a company as well as those doing the criticising by characterising said criticism as "hysteria" is a bad way to start, son of Krypton.
Kal-El wrote: Just play the game and support the hobby IMO.
What hobby would that be? Miniature Wargaming, which is what it is, or the Games Workshop HHHobby, which is what GW thinks it is?
Kal-El wrote: Warmachine and hordes is an entirely different point value system. Think of a jack or beast as maybe a dreadnought or a wraith lord. That game also has it's 5-10 man squads as well. It also has a lot of little individual models.
So what? You still need a fraction of the model count to play an equivalent sized game.
Kal-El wrote: The quality of PP plastic is horrendous and the mold lines and it's placement is in the worst areas and all over the mini.
And herrings are also red!
Kal-El wrote: GW has the best product on the market I'd say as far as quality and mold lines go.
Excellent. Nothing to do with this conversation though. No one's going after GW's model quality and/or mold lines.
Or, given PP's use of resin, perhaps we should compare the quality of WARMAHordes miniatures to GW's resin - Finecast?
Not a lot of argument about mold lines, I will grant you... missing limbs, figures that melt in the hot sun of Leeds, bubbles that you can use to bail out a canoe... but not mold lines....
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
heartserenade wrote: Perry has very good plastic models, in fact in par (maybe even better!) than GW since you know, they're the same fething sculptors.
Resin and metal-wise? Infinity at the top of my head.
No, GW doesn't have the best product model-wise.
+1 to both of those. Just putting some Perry War of the Roses miniatures together at the moment actually - the sculpt detail is at least as good as the GW Empire/Bretonninan equivalents (with a personal preference for the more realistically proportioned style), and you can buy a box of 40 of them, inc. command options, for about the same price as 10 GW miniatures. You also get a little painting/heraldry guide in the box. Think that illustrates the point of value pretty well in my book.
They are the best if you like the GW heroic proportions and design aesthetic; spikes, skulls, purity seals, rivets, and so on.
If you need to have the official models of course it is a monopoly.
In terms of actual sculptural quality and quality of rendition in the materials, I don't think GW are any better than most of the other wargame figure companies, and they certainly did so very badly with the quality of Finecast that the reputation has rubbed off on "restic" and other resinous type materials used by some of the other companies.
Kal-El wrote: Warmachine and hordes is an entirely different point value system. Think of a jack or beast as maybe a dreadnought or a wraith lord. That game also has it's 5-10 man squads as well. It also has a lot of little individual models.
We went over this in the 'OMG Infinity is a skirmish game?' thread, but: this means absolutely nothing other than GW has decided to require more models for an entry level force than other games, and Games Workshop has also sometimes decided to not give complete starter forces with their starters. And at all with their battleforces.
Yes, the 2 player Warmachine set gives you 2 complete starter forces. They're small, but complete. The game also requires less models than Warhammer 40k overall. There's nothing at all wrong with this, it's simply a different approach to game design. And yes, it's absolutely a factor of importance when discussing entry level costs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/01 10:11:59
We see a lot of GW vs PP in just about all of these threads, and that is ok and I think good for discussion. What I would like to add to the this is an over all umbrella so we can kinda go from there and have a bit of structure to what we are all trying to communicate to each other.
What is the most important thing to compare? Is it the models or game play?
Are the rules the backbone of any system regardless of how pretty or ugly or mold-lined the models are?
Here is my personal opinions (they are just mine, no more or less valid then anyone else's).
To me rules are number 1. If I don;t like how the game plays I don't care about the models. Models to me are the physical representation of rules in the game (it does help me want to paint it if I like the model but its not essential to my enjoyment of the game).
Number 2 on my list is the community and support of said community by the company. I like being able to interact with folks from the game companies its cool to meet the dude that put out that amazing new model (rules wise or ascetics wise) and ask them about how they do it. I like being able to get onto the PP boards and ask a question of a rules developer and actually get an answer. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy and mostly I feel like I am part of the community.
So I ask you whats the hobby to you and is GW fulfilling your expectations? If they are, hey right on keep trucking. If they are not I'd ask you to look around and find something that you really like.
We are blessed in this time of war gaming, there are so very many good/great games out there. WM/H, Infinity, BattleTech is back, Firestorm Armada. The list goes on. There is really no need to gnash teeth and loose sleep over what GW is or is not doing.
Kilkrazy wrote: In terms of actual sculptural quality and quality of rendition in the materials, I don't think GW are any better than most of the other wargame figure companies, and they certainly did so very badly with the quality of Finecast that the reputation has rubbed off on "restic" and other resinous type materials used by some of the other companies.
Yeah, this is pretty much where I landed, having just assembled the whole WM starter set. A lot of things feel different, but I don't feel it's any better or worse than GW. The models go together differently, the plastic is a bit harder and heavier, the bases are different.
IMO, the mold lines were no worse. There were one or two that were horribly located, but I've certainly had that happen on GW models as well. Also, I didn't have any molds that were "off" where the two halves were slightly displaced, and I certainly saw that in the 6th edition boxed set for 40k.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
darefsky wrote: We see a lot of GW vs PP in just about all of these threads, and that is ok and I think good for discussion. What I would like to add to the this is an over all umbrella so we can kinda go from there and have a bit of structure to what we are all trying to communicate to each other.
What is the most important thing to compare? Is it the models or game play?
...
...
That set me off on a train of thought that is rather long and I hope people may find it not to dull to read through.
Historical wargamers have never seen the rules and the figures as the natural product of one single company. The principal reason being it is not possible to copyright historical uniforms. Anyone can make a Sherman tank or a Napoleon’s Old Guard Grenadier and use them for any appropriate ruleset.
Battlefront tried to make WW2 their own by issuing Flames of War rules for 15mm scale with accompanying models. Previously, historical wargamers had used 20mm figures that are compatible with the wide range of 1/72 scale kits on the market.
This at first had some success but as FoW became popular other companies started to produce compatible 15mm scale models. In the end Battlefront failed in their attempt last year to ban rival kits from official competitions, due to player reaction.
Similarly the popularity of GW’s rules has produced the situation in which many companies can offer highly compatible models, often at lower prices. Substitutes for Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Chaos, Squats and Orks can all be easily found at significantly cheaper prices. This is not to mention the many other generic SF 28mm models now available as well as historical figures that can be adapted with 3rd party weapon packs.
GW of course in theory made their own original IP to prevent people from making compatible models, however the Chapter House case showed that this was not true.
Thus GW are suffering in sales of figures and have fought back in two new ways. The first is to change the nature of the game to promote large models like the Riptide, Knight Titan, Baneblade and Flyers that are difficult for small companies to make, as well as being expensive and profitable. (There is the risk of people simply using SF kits from other ranges such as Gundam or Terminator and so on. A thread in the News & Rumours forum regularly announces new releases that could be suitable for 40K.)
The second ploy has been to increase the price of the rules and make them a more important profit centre in themselves. 7th edition has arrived less than two years after 5th edition was available for £30 and faces players with the need to buy a £60 rulebook and codexes that are also double the price they were two years ago. Just to keep current with your one army you need to spend £90, not even considering the cost of the new super unit model kits. Many veterans have several armies.
At the same time though, a lot of the rules changes designed to promote sales of the large kits have proved unpopular with a good proportion of players. At a rough guess, half the player base disregarded Apocalypse because they are not interested in that style of game, and these people are not interested in Escalation and clearly there is a significant amount of indifference or even opposition to other new elements.
This factor, combined with the relentless up-selling is creating more of a split in the player base. The amount of argument surrounding 7th Edition is much greater than for any earlier release in my experience. It is not about which armies are better or weaker, or whether vehicles or assault is too strong, it is about basic points of how the game is to be played.
The thing is that the no.1 reason why people play 40K is because so many people play 40K. It has several effects; firstly it is easier to find opponents who understand the game and have armies ready to roll, secondly, if you are a complete newbie, it is easier to find someone to teach you the game and help you build an army, thirdly, there are that many more players around to promote the game by word of mouth thus creating new newbies.
The more GW fracture the user base and piss off a significant section, the more they risk turning the network effect into a negative instead of a positive. Their one man shops aren't doing the business in recruitment and training so GW need the player network more than before, yet they are almost deliberately alienating a lot of veterans in order to try and force big sales to newbies.
This may have no consequence at all, but it may have an absolutely dire effect that would collapse the company in a surprisingly short time.
darefsky wrote: We see a lot of GW vs PP in just about all of these threads, and that is ok and I think good for discussion. What I would like to add to the this is an over all umbrella so we can kinda go from there and have a bit of structure to what we are all trying to communicate to each other.
What is the most important thing to compare? Is it the models or game play?
...
...
That set me off on a train of thought that is rather long and I hope people may find it not to dull to read through.
Historical wargamers have never seen the rules and the figures as the natural product of one single company. The principal reason being it is not possible to copyright historical uniforms. Anyone can make a Sherman tank or a Napoleon’s Old Guard Grenadier and use them for any appropriate ruleset.
Battlefront tried to make WW2 their own by issuing Flames of War rules for 15mm scale with accompanying models. Previously, historical wargamers had used 20mm figures that are compatible with the wide range of 1/72 scale kits on the market.
This at first had some success but as FoW became popular other companies started to produce compatible 15mm scale models. In the end Battlefront failed in their attempt last year to ban rival kits from official competitions, due to player reaction.
Similarly the popularity of GW’s rules has produced the situation in which many companies can offer highly compatible models, often at lower prices. Substitutes for Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Chaos, Squats and Orks can all be easily found at significantly cheaper prices. This is not to mention the many other generic SF 28mm models now available as well as historical figures that can be adapted with 3rd party weapon packs.
GW of course in theory made their own original IP to prevent people from making compatible models, however the Chapter House case showed that this was not true.
Thus GW are suffering in sales of figures and have fought back in two new ways. The first is to change the nature of the game to promote large models like the Riptide, Knight Titan, Baneblade and Flyers that are difficult for small companies to make, as well as being expensive and profitable. (There is the risk of people simply using SF kits from other ranges such as Gundam or Terminator and so on. A thread in the News & Rumours forum regularly announces new releases that could be suitable for 40K.)
The second ploy has been to increase the price of the rules and make them a more important profit centre in themselves. 7th edition has arrived less than two years after 5th edition was available for £30 and faces players with the need to buy a £60 rulebook and codexes that are also double the price they were two years ago. Just to keep current with your one army you need to spend £90, not even considering the cost of the new super unit model kits. Many veterans have several armies.
At the same time though, a lot of the rules changes designed to promote sales of the large kits have proved unpopular with a good proportion of players. At a rough guess, half the player base disregarded Apocalypse because they are not interested in that style of game, and these people are not interested in Escalation and clearly there is a significant amount of indifference or even opposition to other new elements.
This factor, combined with the relentless up-selling is creating more of a split in the player base. The amount of argument surrounding 7th Edition is much greater than for any earlier release in my experience. It is not about which armies are better or weaker, or whether vehicles or assault is too strong, it is about basic points of how the game is to be played.
The thing is that the no.1 reason why people play 40K is because so many people play 40K. It has several effects; firstly it is easier to find opponents who understand the game and have armies ready to roll, secondly, if you are a complete newbie, it is easier to find someone to teach you the game and help you build an army, thirdly, there are that many more players around to promote the game by word of mouth thus creating new newbies.
The more GW fracture the user base and piss off a significant section, the more they risk turning the network effect into a negative instead of a positive. Their one man shops aren't doing the business in recruitment and training so GW need the player network more than before, yet they are almost deliberately alienating a lot of veterans in order to try and force big sales to newbies.
This may have no consequence at all, but it may have an absolutely dire effect that would collapse the company in a surprisingly short time.
IF only GW could see things this clearly.
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
That set me off on a train of thought that is rather long and I hope people may find it not to dull to read through.
Historical wargamers have never seen the rules and the figures as the natural product of one single company. The principal reason being it is not possible to copyright historical uniforms. Anyone can make a Sherman tank or a Napoleon’s Old Guard Grenadier and use them for any appropriate ruleset.
Battlefront tried to make WW2 their own by issuing Flames of War rules for 15mm scale with accompanying models. Previously, historical wargamers had used 20mm figures that are compatible with the wide range of 1/72 scale kits on the market.
This at first had some success but as FoW became popular other companies started to produce compatible 15mm scale models. In the end Battlefront failed in their attempt last year to ban rival kits from official competitions, due to player reaction.
Similarly the popularity of GW’s rules has produced the situation in which many companies can offer highly compatible models, often at lower prices. Substitutes for Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Chaos, Squats and Orks can all be easily found at significantly cheaper prices. This is not to mention the many other generic SF 28mm models now available as well as historical figures that can be adapted with 3rd party weapon packs.
GW of course in theory made their own original IP to prevent people from making compatible models, however the Chapter House case showed that this was not true.
Thus GW are suffering in sales of figures and have fought back in two new ways. The first is to change the nature of the game to promote large models like the Riptide, Knight Titan, Baneblade and Flyers that are difficult for small companies to make, as well as being expensive and profitable. (There is the risk of people simply using SF kits from other ranges such as Gundam or Terminator and so on. A thread in the News & Rumours forum regularly announces new releases that could be suitable for 40K.)
The second ploy has been to increase the price of the rules and make them a more important profit centre in themselves. 7th edition has arrived less than two years after 5th edition was available for £30 and faces players with the need to buy a £60 rulebook and codexes that are also double the price they were two years ago. Just to keep current with your one army you need to spend £90, not even considering the cost of the new super unit model kits. Many veterans have several armies.
At the same time though, a lot of the rules changes designed to promote sales of the large kits have proved unpopular with a good proportion of players. At a rough guess, half the player base disregarded Apocalypse because they are not interested in that style of game, and these people are not interested in Escalation and clearly there is a significant amount of indifference or even opposition to other new elements.
This factor, combined with the relentless up-selling is creating more of a split in the player base. The amount of argument surrounding 7th Edition is much greater than for any earlier release in my experience. It is not about which armies are better or weaker, or whether vehicles or assault is too strong, it is about basic points of how the game is to be played.
The thing is that the no.1 reason why people play 40K is because so many people play 40K. It has several effects; firstly it is easier to find opponents who understand the game and have armies ready to roll, secondly, if you are a complete newbie, it is easier to find someone to teach you the game and help you build an army, thirdly, there are that many more players around to promote the game by word of mouth thus creating new newbies.
The more GW fracture the user base and piss off a significant section, the more they risk turning the network effect into a negative instead of a positive. Their one man shops aren't doing the business in recruitment and training so GW need the player network more than before, yet they are almost deliberately alienating a lot of veterans in order to try and force big sales to newbies.
This may have no consequence at all, but it may have an absolutely dire effect that would collapse the company in a surprisingly short time.
All very good points. But, I wonder: Is GW really trying to alienate the veterans? One of the biggest reasons for releasing all new kits like the Imperial Knight and the Gorkanaut is because it is something new that the veterans don't already have. They're not necessarily making these new things (like Centurions and Hunter/Stalker tanks, as well) just to push on the newbies, since they can push the entire army on to the newbies. The veterans already have their armies, so what is the one thing veterans don't have that GW can sell them? New models, new rules, new special paints, etc. So, maybe they think they're actually serving the veterans with a lot of these new releases?
I mean, sure, it feels like we're being alienated because of all the things GW keeps taking away that we remember from over the years. I think the real problem is that GW no longer even knows how to handle the concept of veteran players. They're more focused on the quick sale and the short term cash grab. The upcoming financials will certainly be an eye opener in many ways, I suspect.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
I do not think GW have decided to do whatever they can to piss off veterans. They just don't care if their changed strategy does piss off veterans or they perhaps mistakenly think veterans will welcome it.
To a veteran the result is the same however it comes about.
As you say, perhaps GW have lost sight of what veteran players may mean to them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/01 21:37:51
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
darefsky wrote: We see a lot of GW vs PP in just about all of these threads, and that is ok and I think good for discussion. What I would like to add to the this is an over all umbrella so we can kinda go from there and have a bit of structure to what we are all trying to communicate to each other.
What is the most important thing to compare? Is it the models or game play?
...
...
That set me off on a train of thought that is rather long and I hope people may find it not to dull to read through.
Historical wargamers have never seen the rules and the figures as the natural product of one single company. The principal reason being it is not possible to copyright historical uniforms. Anyone can make a Sherman tank or a Napoleon’s Old Guard Grenadier and use them for any appropriate ruleset.
Battlefront tried to make WW2 their own by issuing Flames of War rules for 15mm scale with accompanying models. Previously, historical wargamers had used 20mm figures that are compatible with the wide range of 1/72 scale kits on the market.
This at first had some success but as FoW became popular other companies started to produce compatible 15mm scale models. In the end Battlefront failed in their attempt last year to ban rival kits from official competitions, due to player reaction.
Similarly the popularity of GW’s rules has produced the situation in which many companies can offer highly compatible models, often at lower prices. Substitutes for Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Chaos, Squats and Orks can all be easily found at significantly cheaper prices. This is not to mention the many other generic SF 28mm models now available as well as historical figures that can be adapted with 3rd party weapon packs.
GW of course in theory made their own original IP to prevent people from making compatible models, however the Chapter House case showed that this was not true.
Thus GW are suffering in sales of figures and have fought back in two new ways. The first is to change the nature of the game to promote large models like the Riptide, Knight Titan, Baneblade and Flyers that are difficult for small companies to make, as well as being expensive and profitable. (There is the risk of people simply using SF kits from other ranges such as Gundam or Terminator and so on. A thread in the News & Rumours forum regularly announces new releases that could be suitable for 40K.)
The second ploy has been to increase the price of the rules and make them a more important profit centre in themselves. 7th edition has arrived less than two years after 5th edition was available for £30 and faces players with the need to buy a £60 rulebook and codexes that are also double the price they were two years ago. Just to keep current with your one army you need to spend £90, not even considering the cost of the new super unit model kits. Many veterans have several armies.
At the same time though, a lot of the rules changes designed to promote sales of the large kits have proved unpopular with a good proportion of players. At a rough guess, half the player base disregarded Apocalypse because they are not interested in that style of game, and these people are not interested in Escalation and clearly there is a significant amount of indifference or even opposition to other new elements.
This factor, combined with the relentless up-selling is creating more of a split in the player base. The amount of argument surrounding 7th Edition is much greater than for any earlier release in my experience. It is not about which armies are better or weaker, or whether vehicles or assault is too strong, it is about basic points of how the game is to be played.
The thing is that the no.1 reason why people play 40K is because so many people play 40K. It has several effects; firstly it is easier to find opponents who understand the game and have armies ready to roll, secondly, if you are a complete newbie, it is easier to find someone to teach you the game and help you build an army, thirdly, there are that many more players around to promote the game by word of mouth thus creating new newbies.
The more GW fracture the user base and piss off a significant section, the more they risk turning the network effect into a negative instead of a positive. Their one man shops aren't doing the business in recruitment and training so GW need the player network more than before, yet they are almost deliberately alienating a lot of veterans in order to try and force big sales to newbies.
This may have no consequence at all, but it may have an absolutely dire effect that would collapse the company in a surprisingly short time.
Those are some really good points, KK.
I really wish GW would look at this with some level of introspection. My love for 40k has been taking tremendous hits since halfway through 6th edition (about a year ago!). I went from only exploring Dystopian Wars in a friend's group to ditching my third 40k project and looking into WM/H. Part of me feels weird because 40k is something I've enjoyed for such a long time, but it seems like the company that built it just isn't there any more other than in name.
Time will tell, but I just don't see 40k making any big positive steps in the future.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/01 22:10:34
