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.
What I was referring to, reestablishing communication with the player base is an option. It isn't something that will turn the company around from a financial perspective.
"Damn, our sales are way down, if only there was some way to ask customers why they've stopped buying our products, or foster some kind of relationship with them to increase their loyalty. Like...some kind of.. public forum, where they could give us feedback? Maybe our products are too cheap and our rules are too clear? We'll just have to assume thats what it is until some kind of mass communication is invented, increase prices and make more vauge, badly worded rules, that'll sort it out!"
It's hilarious that people think GW isn't aware of the feelings of their player base, it truly is.
What about their behaviour makes you think they are?
[GENERATION 14: The first time you see this, copy and paste it into your sig and add 1 to the number after generation. Consider it a social experiment.
[quote=Throt 601367 6955815 fad29d8ef35eadfd8636ca1094c624c9.jpg
You missed the context of the Mercedes comparison. It was strictly based on people being able to afford it.
GW delivers on everything required. Everything else is subjective. That is the point I am trying to get across.
That is the problem: you miss the point. You assume that a lot of people complain about the prices because they cannot afford them. That is a wrong assumption based on nothing to back it up. Just take me as an example. My wife and I both score very high on the income scale. We bought a PS3 just so we could play Dark Souls II. You assume that because someone can afford a product he has to be ok with tge price. That's a very naive and wrong assumption. GW rules are poor quality rules that often lack cohesion and don't see any playtesting. Poor quality does not justify a premium price. That is because we don't pay for the ruloes: the cost-quality ratio is way off.
How about we discuss a single appalling rule that is ruining the game? If it plays fine for me and not for you then it is not broken it is subjective.
That is my point. I have a classic rational consumist point of view: high price means high quality. If this is not the case, it feels wrong. You are an apologist: "Yeah there are problems but I can fix them so it's still awesome! ". That's fine if you are happy with it as it is your opinion and youbare entitlef to it. You finding a solution for a problem, however, does not make the problem disappear. It is still there. Your view is the subjective view, with you finding ways around a problem. The objective view is that there are problems. Latest example: CCB. Still no FAQ.
Sry for typos on phone and football match about to start.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/21 18:56:21
GW is fully aware about how people feel about their ruleset and business practices. They just think they know better.
Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Ultramarines: 2000 pts
Bolt Action Germans: ~1200 pts
AOS Stormcast: Just starting.
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!
What I was referring to, reestablishing communication with the player base is an option. It isn't something that will turn the company around from a financial perspective.
"Damn, our sales are way down, if only there was some way to ask customers why they've stopped buying our products, or foster some kind of relationship with them to increase their loyalty. Like...some kind of.. public forum, where they could give us feedback? Maybe our products are too cheap and our rules are too clear? We'll just have to assume thats what it is until some kind of mass communication is invented, increase prices and make more vauge, badly worded rules, that'll sort it out!"
It's hilarious that people think GW isn't aware of the feelings of their player base, it truly is.
What about their behaviour makes you think they are?
They're a business, they are in it to make money. As long as people continue to spend money, they have no reason to make any significant changes, EA for example, has open communication with the players, listens to the anger, and continues on with their business model. You know what players do, they keep buying. Frustration and venting isn't enough to make a multi-million dollar company give two-gaks to be honest, not as long as people keep buying. Recent shareholders losing money and stock going down, may, may change things, but they didn't lose enough to do more than cause them to blink, take a second to think and then continue on.
GW is fully aware about how people feel about their ruleset and business practices. They just think they know better.
That and they don't care.
To quote one of the hobby shop owners I where I play, "Like them or not, GW makes the best crack out there."
And its true. You see it everywhere in sales. People will pay outrageous prices to ensure top quality because it is what they want. Businesses won't make changes until profits plummet. GW profits haven't begun to plummet.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/21 18:56:49
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
azreal13 wrote: Then I think you've misunderstood my signature, and you've definitely misunderstood my intent behind the pic if you think I'm accusing you of complaining about anything
I'm also interested how you feel comfortable commenting on my actions in 5k+ posts over 3 years when you've been here barely a week.
It's almost like you've been here before....
Recent post history is more than enough tbh.
I may have misunderstood your pic, and if so then I apologize for that.
Your signature, I like it because it's true. Except you've shown to be more argumentative to those who disagree with you in your post history, especially in YMDC
Exactly.
What my quote is saying is that we grow by interacting with people who hold different opinions to us, as they will cause us to look at what we think and examine it, and sometimes rethink it, while only hanging around with those who think the same as us may be comforting, doesn't really help us develop. You appear to have missed that, or at least inserted your own extra requirement of agreeing with those who we disagree with or something?
Interesting that you cite my "recent post history" and my participation in YMDC, a section I don't often bother with, with the exception of a brief foray a week or two ago.
Well Zodiark, I mean, Lobomalo, I guess you really can judge me by a limited amount of knowledge across an anonymous Internet discussion forum.
You got me, I'll stop posting in light of your amazing super powers.
Or not.
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
azreal13 wrote: Then I think you've misunderstood my signature, and you've definitely misunderstood my intent behind the pic if you think I'm accusing you of complaining about anything
I'm also interested how you feel comfortable commenting on my actions in 5k+ posts over 3 years when you've been here barely a week.
It's almost like you've been here before....
Recent post history is more than enough tbh.
I may have misunderstood your pic, and if so then I apologize for that.
Your signature, I like it because it's true. Except you've shown to be more argumentative to those who disagree with you in your post history, especially in YMDC
Exactly.
What my quote is saying is that we grow by interacting with people who hold different opinions to us, as they will cause us to look at what we think and examine it, and sometimes rethink it, while only hanging around with those who think the same as us may be comforting, doesn't really help us develop. You appear to have missed that, or at least inserted your own extra requirement of agreeing with those who we disagree with or something?
Interesting that you cite my "recent post history" and my participation in YMDC, a section I don't often bother with, with the exception of a brief foray a week or two ago.
Well Zodiark, I mean, Lobomalo, I guess you really can judge me by a limited amount of knowledge across an anonymous Internet discussion forum.
You got me, I'll stop posting in light of your amazing super powers.
Or not.
Interesting, Zodiark? No sorry, my first time here was a little over a week ago after a friend showed me a place to get good Tyranid lists for my army.
Me, I read through YMDC for rule issues and I come across topics and opinions people have, it doesn't take much work at all really.
Anyway, back on point, you have this sense of superiority about yourself that you understand more and are aware of more and this simply is not the case sir.
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
But Dakka has a very strong policy against duplicate accounts.
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
1) GW's rules *are* bad. This is an objective fact. It may or may not impact *your* gameplay, but the rules are pretty crap by any stretch of game design. The proliferation of random charts that serve no purpose other than to add a random element, the unclear and often ambiguous rules, the complete lack of caring any lick towards a balanced force, these all mean that in the context of game design 40k would rank pretty low. However, keep in mind that this does *NOT* mean the game can't be fun.
Once the game plays everything after is subjective. None of this is as cut and dry as many would like it to be. So you don't like random, that is not a design flaw, it is a design decision. The rules are clear, and sometimes problems arise due to unforeseen equations. Lack of caring is a biased assumption. And I do say it is fun.
It can be loosely compared to sports. People have a favorite. Football vs. soccer. Street basketballl vs courts. Football has it's rules if another team brings in all it's line backers the size of sumo wrestlers is that a flaw in the game design or the choice the team made?
2) Telling people who are negative/criticize the company to "just stop playing" is not only useless, it's also rude and insulting. Many of us who complain used to play, likely longer than the people who think everything is sunshine and roses, and maybe, just maybe, wish that GW would finally clean out their ears and come down from their ivory tower to see what is wrong with the game, and address it. Dismissing all complaints as "Don't like it? Don't play it!" is bullgak. The fact GW has stuck its head in the sand like an ostrich and ignores all communication and feedback just infuriates peole more, because it is an outright ridiculous way to act for a modern business.
It can be. The problem is that often those criticizing will join a conversation and start with the negativity. The rudeness was in their hand first.
How do you address the many who are like minded like myself that have been playing over 20 years and don't see them on an ivory tower and think things are fine?
The problem I have with the majority of negative people is the basis of complaints and where they express them. The vast majority aren't complaining about anything more than opinion and bashing GW because of things someone else did. Opinions are many sided.
Start a thread on GW bashing and do it all day. Don't come in my thread about how I love the new sculpt for scions and start bitching that GW charges too much and broke the rules and made you have to buy 15 boxes to play them.
Don't go into a sports bar during the NFL super bowl and start telling everyone how soccer and the world cup is better.
3) The old "They've been in business 30 years, they must be doing something right!" argument is a fallacy. While not on GW's scale I've worked for companies that were in business for 10 or more years, and they still collapsed quickly and spectacularly when all their bad business decisions caught up with them. GW had almost no competition for years, while now there are a ton of competition and the internet allows for more startups to chip at the market via things like Kickstarter. GW's business model is not in any way, shape or form sustainable.
Correlation is not always causation.
GW business decisions and financial decisions are not directly related to game design. And people are confusing the 2.
4) A big part of the problem with 40k's rules is that the rules are still designed for a skirmish game, despite everything being pushed larger. The ruled have not had a significant change since 2nd to 3rd edition in I believe 1998 (I forget the specific date), and even then 3rd edition was still largely a smaller-level game. Armies went up, this is true, but it was still like a platoon-level game. All the little nuances in the rules have zero place in a large-scale game and bog things down to an enormous scale. There's a reason why virtually every other large-scale game does not use model removal or umpteen special rules for each army: Speed and ease of learning the game. 40k takes the opposite approach, trying to cram as much gak as possible in the game so games are an all-day affair; the conspiracy theorist in me wants to say this is deliberate to push the "investment" that 40k players have in the game, similar to how casinos don't have clocks so you aren't aware of the time you spend in them, which equates to spending more money.
And I respect your opinion and it is just that. People have different expectations of a game and neither is right or wrong.
You like a more simplified large scale game. So other systems may be better suited to your style.
Many love the complexity and feel that each guy counts and feel the pains as the soldier they believe they needed is removed a sa casualty.
40k is more successful than all these other systems.
Throt wrote: You may not agree with the content but they have not declined in quality. Hard covers, full color, large amounts of artwork, heavy weight pages
None of the things you just listed have any impact on the quality of the written rules. Which is the part that is actually relevant to the game.
Throt wrote: So you don't like random, that is not a design flaw, it is a design decision.
It's a decision, in the same sense that a restaurant serving rotten food with shards of broken glass in it has made a "cooking decision". Unless you're a white knight for GW it should be pretty obvious that substituting random tables for player decisions is bad game design.
The rules are clear, and sometimes problems arise due to unforeseen equations.
This is a joke, right? The rules aren't even close to clear, and you even admit it when you talk about "unforeseen equations". A good rule system does not have any unforeseen problems, and rarely, if ever, has any rule questions that require more than a brief glance at the rulebook to answer. A bad game like 40k, on the other hand, has its equivalent of YMDC.
Football has it's rules if another team brings in all it's line backers the size of sumo wrestlers is that a flaw in the game design or the choice the team made?
Except that's not what we're talking about here. 40k has flaws when you play normal games, not just stupid games with lists that are deliberately designed to lose.
The problem is that often those criticizing will join a conversation and start with the negativity.
You know why? Because there are things to criticize. Please stop complaining about how negative everyone is and deal with the substance of the criticism.
Many love the complexity and feel that each guy counts and feel the pains as the soldier they believe they needed is removed a sa casualty.
Too bad 40k doesn't offer that feeling. Maybe those people should look for a new game where individual models are treated as more than just extra wound counters for the sergeant and melta gun?
40k is more successful than all these other systems.
Mostly because of inertia, and the market dominance GW built in the years when they had little or no competition. Don't make the mistake of assuming that GW taking time to lose their market share means that their products are good.
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.
Games Workshop should only listen to the fans so far.
They will never please everyone one nor should they try. Most fans are illiterate in terms of the business side or biased in terms of the gaming side towards what they think the game should be.
Games workshop does a great job and have single handedly kept the table top business where it is for the last two decades.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/21 22:07:02
PhillyT wrote: Games Workshop should only listen to the fans so far.
They will never please everyone one nor should they try. Most fans are illiterate in terms of the business side or biased in terms of the gaming side towards what they think the game should be.
Games workshop does a great job and have single handedly kept the table top business where it is for the last two decades.
The above is what that post read like.
GW, you can take the gun away from his head now.
Or has the keep now been emptied so much I'm going to need sunglasses to read the thread in the future?
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
PhillyT wrote: Games workshop does a great job and have single handedly kept the table top business where it is for the last two decades.
Most fans are illiterate in terms of the business side
You don't say?
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
PhillyT wrote: Games Workshop should only listen to the fans so far.
They will never please everyone one nor should they try. Most fans are illiterate in terms of the business side or biased in terms of the gaming side towards what they think the game should be.
Games workshop does a great job and have single handedly kept the table top business where it is for the last two decades.
Not sure if serious, trolling, or drunk on the kool-aid
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/21 23:24:34
PhillyT wrote: Awe, so much angst. With fans like some on here, why would or should they listen?
I don't think you know what angst is.
And they should listen because we're the fans who drop several digits of cash on their product.
I activley try not to think how much money I've spent on GW products because its easily in the quad numbers. Whatever that number is, it won"t be increasing until they get their game sorted.
PhillyT wrote: Awe, so much angst. With customers like some on here, they should listen!
FTFY
GW isn't a charity, it's a business, if they have unhappy customers to the point that they're not making 100% of the money they could be or aren't striving to make 100% at least, they're doing it wrong.
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
There are a combination of issues they are facing. Within their model there probably isn't much they can do. Any real response to cost pressures would likely result in the abandonment of the 40k setting or style.
There are plenty of things I dislike about how GW does business, but their success cannot be ignored. They have some issues right now that cannot be "solved" due to how their game is structured and the fact that they are a publicly traded company as well as the only behemoth in the industry.
Part of the fan base. Few businesses should listen to the internet complainer crowd. Similar to athletes and celebrities, never go online and listen to Forum Guy when you are a public figure or company.
Now GW does seem to make some strange choices at times, but I am pretty sure they are much better at this thing than any of us.
Unfair how? Different people want different things.
The trick for any company is simply to find the path that more people approve of.
Also, a trick that many companies seem to manage is to communicate the intent of their decisions and the direction they strive to move towards, and consistently make those types of choices.
For instance, rapid codex updates aren't a bad decision, except when combined with a shift to more expensive, hardback codices, expensive hardback codex supplements, and subcodices. If you want us to buy codexes as often, or more often, then make them less expensive, or no more expensive. If you want to sell expensive books with premium production values, then don't update them very rapidly.
For another example, GW produces two supplements (first, Battle Missions, then Escalation) to allow you to take Super-heavy and Gargantuan units in non-Apocalypse games, and presents this as a 'special option'. They then roll the Lords of War into Standard Missions. Rather than being honest and saying, "We intend for these units to be considered 'standard' 40K, they produce a ruleset where they are a special set of missions (which many people might like and expect), and then take that feedback and insert them in a different manner. We are instructed that these large, set-piece models are so powerful and important that they only show up in special scenarios, or that normal scenarios must have new rules to allow them to function, then find them showing up in the standard rule set. Which is it?
For a third example, GW produces the Imperial Knight, which uses a really large base, and also has STR D ranged weapons. This seems to tell people that they intend for these types of units and weapons to show up in the game. They then produce the Gorkanaut, which uses the same base, and looks pretty darn massive, but doesn't have a STR D Melee weapon. It costs around the same as the Knight, but they advise you to keep it away from the Knight, as the Knight will paste it quickly. Why produce a massive walker with deadly melee weapons, then immediately produce another walker, from a race known for their deadly melee prowess, and make it markedly weaker in melee? What is your intent with the new direction of models?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PhillyT wrote: Part of the fan base. Few businesses should listen to the internet complainer crowd. Similar to athletes and celebrities, never go online and listen to Forum Guy when you are a public figure or company.
Now GW does seem to make some strange choices at times, but I am pretty sure they are much better at this thing than any of us.
Well, given their diminishing share of the market, they might be better at this than us, but they don't appear to better at this than some people. Some of those people just also happen to be ex-GW, as well. Hmmm...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/21 23:57:14
PhillyT wrote: Part of the fan base. Few businesses should listen to the internet complainer crowd. Similar to athletes and celebrities, never go online and listen to Forum Guy when you are a public figure or company.
Now GW does seem to make some strange choices at times, but I am pretty sure they are much better at this thing than any of us.
Most of us seem to understand the general needs of the fanbase more so than GW does.
Well, given their diminishing share of the market, they might be better at this than us, but they don't appear to better at this than some people. Some of those people just also happen to be ex-GW, as well. Hmmm...
Every industry with a single monolithic company and hundreds of minor ones ends up in a similar situation.
No other company matches the scope or size of the GW line and game. They have no competitors within their specific set.
4000+ Points
Tau: 1500ish
The Empire 
1500 pts
: 
I guess you really can judge me by a limited amount of knowledge across an anonymous Internet discussion forum.
