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.

To be fair though the internet contempt is brought about by themselves; now I'm sure most of the designers (maybe not Mat Ward ) are nice people, and most of the discontent is aimed at Kirby at all in senior management. After all, the designers aren't absolute - if their boss or boss's boss says they have to rush things out, then they have to rush things out. Nobody hates the designers (except maybe Mat Ward for his fluff-wrecking nonsense ).

However, the designers are the face of the company, so to speak. Their names are attached to the product, they are the ones who write the articles in White Dwarf extolling the virtues of the game and defending their design. Let's take for example the oft-maligned "forge the narrative" excuse. I've seen this spouted out by Jervis in White Dwarf, so even if he doesn't really believe it (which Jervis probably does, being old school) he's giving the impression that he does, and that carries the stigma of it.

Most of the hatred are things out of the design studio's control. Things like constant price hikes while reducing value, pushing out untested and poorly worded rules, pulling all social media, hostility against independent retailers and bitz-sellers, all of these things are a management problem, not the studio. I highly doubt that Jervis or anyone (including Mat Ward ) is saying that GW should stop people selling GW products online, or that Chapterhouse are thieves who should be put out of business. They might even think those decisions are silly, but they are doing what they are told and paid to do.

I would, in actuality, take the current design team and replace senior management. I don't think any of them are truly bad (maybe Mat Ward ), but again they are the ones who bear the brunt of everything. If they can't playtest a codex because management wants it released in 2 weeks, there's nothing they can do about it but they're going to get all the "GW can't balance X" hate because they have to push it out.

I swear, I see nosferatu1001 arguing with people more than anyone else.

I got to know Jervis via email back in the Epic A Playtesting days, and I always thought he was a good guy, with the exception that at the end of the day, he was going to develop Epic A in his own vision and that was that. Some will say Epic A is the greatest game ever, others will disagree. To me though, he was convinced on creating a system based on a new idea rather than looking into the past and seeing what made the most popular version of the game so great and go from there (Epic Space Marine/Titan Legions). The result? Well where is Epic A now? Or any of the Specialist Games? GW shut them down since they werent profitable enough.

I think in the case of game designers, they care more about what other designers think than the gamers. In other words, they would be more happier or disappointed with games being reviewed by guys in the biz, versus the fans. Its a creative process, and they want to show their creativeness. Sometimes you can be overly creative and just make a mess.

No one who thinks that the core and best thing of game is random rolling is a good designer.

Makumba wrote:
No one who thinks that the core and best thing of game is random rolling is a good designer.

Worked for D&D for many years

I do agree though.

PhantomViper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Phantomviper- I don't know you from Adam, and have nothing to prove to you, or anyone else on this site. What I discuss with my friends is unlikely to be any of your business. Hence why I have told you how you can actually do something constructive, and more verifiable, instead.

But then, casting aspersions on other peoples characters while behind a keyboard is SO much more useful instead. Good going!

No, you don't have anything to prove. But all the posts that I've read from you so far only consist of your personal attacks on other posters without any shred of evidence to back up your claims, including this latest strings of appeal to authority, so don't try and act all upset when people call you on it.

1) see the triangle of friendship? Use it if you feel the need.
2) I never claimed to have evidence , just my personal experiences which I proffered to counter the gak headed rumours that were being spouted unopposed. Please, cite evidence for the rumours you posted, or maybe, just maybe,..
3) learn what an appeal to authority fallacy actually is, before claiming it incorrectly as you did here.

I never stated "I know x person in authority therefore I am right", just pointed out that from what I know, the rumour isn't true (and not even close to true) but that people should actually question these things themselves, instead of simply repeating them. I said that more than once, just to make sure.even gave you tips as to how you could do so!

Grimtuff wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Phantomviper- I don't know you from Adam, and have nothing to prove to you, or anyone else on this site. What I discuss with my friends is unlikely to be any of your business. Hence why I have told you how you can actually do something constructive, and more verifiable, instead.

But then, casting aspersions on other peoples characters while behind a keyboard is SO much more useful instead. Good going!

You brought it up in this conversation relating to GW's inner workings. Now you're saying that it's none of our business?

Which is why I suspect its pure unadulterated male bovine excrement.

...and reported. Again, suspect what you like, but your opinion is valueless to me. I am secure enough in who, and what I know, and who IS actually important to me and that I care a great deal for.

Will you ever add content?

Cite evidence yourself.

So, You're allowed to call out BS when you think it is so, yet we're not allowed to? Okay... What we have here is a classic case of hypocrite.

If people want to talk evidence then we have a screencap of GW upper managment abusing customers and clearly having no respect for them. We also have a court transcript saying our favorite part of the hobby is buying things.

That is all we can be sure about.

Anything else is circumstantial or anecdotal. The only REAL evidence we have points to GW having no respect tor their customers.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Grimtuff wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Phantomviper- I don't know you from Adam, and have nothing to prove to you, or anyone else on this site. What I discuss with my friends is unlikely to be any of your business. Hence why I have told you how you can actually do something constructive, and more verifiable, instead.

But then, casting aspersions on other peoples characters while behind a keyboard is SO much more useful instead. Good going!

You brought it up in this conversation relating to GW's inner workings. Now you're saying that it's none of our business?

Which is why I suspect its pure unadulterated male bovine excrement.

...and reported. Again, suspect what you like, but your opinion is valueless to me. I am secure enough in who, and what I know, and who IS actually important to me and that I care a great deal for.

Will you ever add content?

Yup can't have someone call your posts BS, while you call BS on other people posts, wouldn't be fair right.

The only so called proof in the thread, the court case and from the rules they put out, point to not caring about the rules and have no respect for their player base. Everything else, your post included are rumor and hearsay, only backed up by "I know it to be". Say what every you want, your just a guy on the internet and... well are not you the one who pointed out what people say online with out some thing to back it up are.

I think it might not be doing that well. Not like the early 2000s where it was unstoppable.

I don't care what GW's opinion of me may or may not be. I care that the products they put out should be ones I want to buy and play with.

BTW I understand that GW have stopped putting the name of the designer as the author of codexes. It is credited to The Studio or something like that.

I think the underlying issue is that GW don't respect us in any way, which leads to them assuming we will buy whatever they make rather than trying to make things we want to buy.

Guys, you need to cool it with the name calling and belittling language. Both sides. If everyone remembers Rule 1, no one has to get reported.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I think the underlying issue is that GW don't respect us in any way, which leads to them assuming we will buy whatever they make rather than trying to make things we want to buy.

But how serious is that lack of respect? I mean, complaining about how much customers suck is an ancient and sacred tradition among everyone who has to deal with customers, so a "gamers suck" rant is exactly what I'd expect to see occasionally. Yeah, letting it out in public is something you never do (and the idiot should be punished for it), but the rant itself is nothing unusual. Similarly, the "they love buying stuff" thing wasn't an honest opinion, it was a calculated strategy for winning a trial. GW wanted to establish how much their customers love Genuine™ Games™ Workshop™ Products™ to convince the court that they were suffering real financial damage from the third-party sales, so of course they're going to emphasize the buying/collecting aspect instead of the rest of the hobby.

The real concern here would be if GW actually bases their decisions on these opinions instead of understanding that they're just talk. For example, was the death of Games Day because GW genuinely thought that their customers love buying stuff above all else and would keep coming to an event even after all that was left was the GW store, or was it a case of budget problems forcing them to cut and cut until nothing was left? Does GW really dismiss the value of older customers playing a game "for kids" and ignore that market, or do some people just get frustrated occasionally when they have to deal with the worst TFGs? And we can't really answer those questions with any real confidence.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Cite evidence yourself.

So, You're allowed to call out BS when you think it is so, yet we're not allowed to? Okay... What we have here is a classic case of hypocrite.

Wrong.

I stated that I know the rumour to be false. I also said how you can confirm the rumour, or not, yourself, as opposed to blindly following it like some do here.

Hypocritical is not demanding the same of the initial rumour.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I stated that I know the rumour to be false. I also said how you can confirm the rumour, or not, yourself, as opposed to blindly following it like some do here.

Except your "proof" that the rumor is false is just as unsupported as the claim that GW don't playtest at all. If you're going to complain about "blindly following" unconfirmed rumors then you need to post some evidence for your own rumors.

Hypocritical is not demanding the same of the initial rumour.

It's not hypocritical at all because the initial rumor is supported very well by the rules that GW publishes. They're full of ambiguous rules and major balance problems that even basic playtesting should have caught, so the most obvious conclusion is that if GW does playtest at all it is laughably inadequate. They might play some games every friday, but screwing around and giving yourself a three-day weekend every week is not the same thing as serious playtesting.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
BTW I understand that GW have stopped putting the name of the designer as the author of codexes. It is credited to The Studio or something like that.

Yet another example of GW burying their head in the sand. They saw the outcry against Ward for the fluff train wreck we got in the Grey Knight Codex, and the further outcry against Newcrons. Yet, like with social media, their forum and every other criticism they receive, rather than dealing with it they just ran away from it. Now it's "the studio design team". As someone who's had rules I've written published in multiple books, having your name in the credits is pretty damned awesome. Being reduced down to "a team of people who wrote some stuff" isn't cool.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I think the underlying issue is that GW don't respect us in any way, which leads to them assuming we will buy whatever they make rather than trying to make things we want to buy.

No need to assume that. Kirby said exactly that - They'll buy what we make.

Maybe the writers demanded it so their names wouldn't be tarnished by what GW was making them do? ; p

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
BTW I understand that GW have stopped putting the name of the designer as the author of codexes. It is credited to The Studio or something like that.

Yet another example of GW burying their head in the sand. They saw the outcry against Ward for the fluff train wreck we got in the Grey Knight Codex, and the further outcry against Newcrons. Yet, like with social media, their forum and every other criticism they receive, rather than dealing with it they just ran away from it. Now it's "the studio design team". As someone who's had rules I've written published in multiple books, having your name in the credits is pretty damned awesome. Being reduced down to "a team of people who wrote some stuff" isn't cool.

...

It also forms part of your portfolio. That is why everyone on films and TV crews is so keen to be credited.

Mmmm... I usually like to talk about how GW is going to go under, but have been staying out of this thread. There's a lot of opinion here, very little substance.

It's always interesting to see what they are doing with their IP and who they are licensing it to. I am starting to see what they are up to with their digital strategy now, where they are licensing IP to smaller developers. Look at the numbers around some of the recent releases:

40k Carnage - $6.99 - about 8.6k downloads

http://xyo.net/android-game/warhammer-40-000-carnage-EzorogU/

40k Storm of Vengeance - $2.99 - about 10k downloads

http://xyo.net/android-game/wh40k-storm-of-vengeance-mz4oDZ8/

I know there are other titles on the horizon, which are not as limited as these, but I have to ask: why bother? DOW2 sold more than 6.5 million units. Space Marine sold over 2 million. GW makes more off bigger games even if they flop. I can't see the upside in retreads of Plants versus Zombies / Starcraft.

I guess this is to say, it's clear they are going somewhere, but I don't see any driver at the wheel. If they were counting on brand loyalty to drive sales, this isn't it. Looking down the road a bit: how are they going to get people to sign up for an MMO when they can't get people to download a $7 app? It doesn't bode well...

Games Workshop have licensed the Warhammer/40K backgrounds for a number of games over the years, but the income from licensing and novels has always been a small proportion of their total revenue -- the icing on the cake, not the cake itself, so to speak.

This would seem to indicate that the games (rules and models) are the key driver of sales. In other words, it seems doubtful if licensing would succeed without the core game sales.

 techsoldaten wrote:
I know there are other titles on the horizon, which are not as limited as these, but I have to ask: why bother? DOW2 sold more than 6.5 million units. Space Marine sold over 2 million. GW makes more off bigger games even if they flop. I can't see the upside in retreads of Plants versus Zombies / Starcraft.

It entirely depends on how much they cost to develop and how much of the licensing money GW actually get off the game. It's entirely possible for a game to sell millions of units and still not recoup the development and advertising costs. It's entirely possible for a game to only sell in the thousands but make a profit if it was only made by a couple of dudes in their basement.

Depending how the contract is written, GW would be paid a base fee for licensing the b/g and artwork, then a royalty per copy sold. These fees would normally be scheduled throughout the life of the project

Of course if the game is a huge expensive to make flop, or the publisher has other financial difficulties, he may be unable to meet his obligations.

The small games are lower risk for everyone, but looking at the Storm of Vengeance it may not be worth it. Selling 20K copies at $2.99 is worth only about £18,000 base revenue, let alone profit. You would need to launch thousands of games each year like that to start making any visible difference to the bottom line.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
BTW I understand that GW have stopped putting the name of the designer as the author of codexes. It is credited to The Studio or something like that.

I am surprised they did this for so long to be honest. I know typically books includes the author(s), and in some cases, the authors themselves where kind of their own characters, but truthfully it seems like such a 90s thing, and given GWs approach to putting the company before the individual, it makes sense for them to do.

But I see the pros and cons of it. The writer loses credit for what he developed, yet is spared the criticism. But at the end of the day, GW owns it, so why not put its own name down.

I dont know anything about the newer writers either... all the guys I knew from the earlier days are no longer with the company.

 techsoldaten wrote:
I know there are other titles on the horizon, which are not as limited as these, but I have to ask: why bother?

Three simple words:

Short.
Term.
Profits.

Everything is geared towards the next report, and everything is geared towards maximum short-term income with minimum effort. That's why they're throwing the license at whoever will take it. They collect the fee, and the company makes whatever crappy shovelware mobile title they want to. The number next to licensing fees goes up, and they get to - if you'll excuse the expression - hide the decline.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Depending how the contract is written, GW would be paid a base fee for licensing the b/g and artwork, then a royalty per copy sold. These fees would normally be scheduled throughout the life of the project

Of course if the game is a huge expensive to make flop, or the publisher has other financial difficulties, he may be unable to meet his obligations.

The small games are lower risk for everyone, but looking at the Storm of Vengeance it may not be worth it. Selling 20K copies at $2.99 is worth only about £18,000 base revenue, let alone profit. You would need to launch thousands of games each year like that to start making any visible difference to the bottom line.

It is, to me at least, plausible that GW view this sort of thing as advertising rather than a money maker (which still actually makes them money, because we know GW don't like spending.)

Judging by the frequency people of a certain age cite DOW as their introduction to wargaming, I'd suggest that videogamers are a relatively fertile hunting ground for new player recruitment, and this sort of thing puts the IP in front of them with little to no risk.

Then if, by sheer luck, the next 40K IOS title is the next Angry Birds or Candy Crush Saga, then I'm sure the management will all pat themselves on the back and declare themselves visionary geniuses.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
I know there are other titles on the horizon, which are not as limited as these, but I have to ask: why bother?

Three simple words:

Short.
Term.
Profits.

Everything is geared towards the next report, and everything is geared towards maximum short-term income with minimum effort. That's why they're throwing the license at whoever will take it. They collect the fee, and the company makes whatever crappy shovelware mobile title they want to. The number next to licensing fees goes up, and they get to - if you'll excuse the expression - hide the decline.

Except they are not making any money. This isn't worth the time it took a Lawyer to draft an agreement. At these levels of sales, they have likely lost money just in man-hours. And it diminishes the brand to be engaging in minor commercialization efforts such as these. They look cheap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Depending how the contract is written, GW would be paid a base fee for licensing the b/g and artwork, then a royalty per copy sold. These fees would normally be scheduled throughout the life of the project

Of course if the game is a huge expensive to make flop, or the publisher has other financial difficulties, he may be unable to meet his obligations.

The small games are lower risk for everyone, but looking at the Storm of Vengeance it may not be worth it. Selling 20K copies at $2.99 is worth only about £18,000 base revenue, let alone profit. You would need to launch thousands of games each year like that to start making any visible difference to the bottom line.

It is, to me at least, plausible that GW view this sort of thing as advertising rather than a money maker (which still actually makes them money, because we know GW don't like spending.)

Judging by the frequency people of a certain age cite DOW as their introduction to wargaming, I'd suggest that videogamers are a relatively fertile hunting ground for new player recruitment, and this sort of thing puts the IP in front of them with little to no risk.

Then if, by sheer luck, the next 40K IOS title is the next Angry Birds or Candy Crush Saga, then I'm sure the management will all pat themselves on the back and declare themselves visionary geniuses.

That would be true if these games reflected on Games Workshop in a positive light. These games do not, they make ownership look like gibbering idiots on a drool binge in a crowded train. They are driving their brand into the ground over trivial digital releases and do not seem to understand how bad this is for their business.

GW is a company that makes games. The reason people choose to play GW games, instead of, say, Plants versus Zombies, is that they are expecting something that's clever and operates above a first grade comprehension level. It's not very hard to understand that point - we all made the switch from Candyland to the Grimdark somewhere along the way. They are supposed to be this form of entertainment you graduate to, and it's the company's purpose for existing.

Creating games at operate at the level of Plants versus Zombies, or Candyland, or Monopoly, or whatever, is something that takes away from this purpose for existing. This is what we call diminishing the brand, it is something that shows the brand is less important than we thought in the first place.

The message people are getting right now is that GAMES Workshop doesn't really know how to make games. The company isn't really equipped to do anything new or novel, they are in the business of making clones of other people's games. It doesn't matter if these games are being released by a third party or not, these are the things people see when they search for 40k.

I think this is bad news for GW, and it's the sort of thing that is going to come back and hurt them in the next few years. Crow on as much as they want about it, but eBook sales are not a digital strategy that will scale with the future. They need to have people working out their online gaming strategy and clearly do not.

I have the sudden urge to play Candyland with my daughter tonight using different colored space marines...

GW is a company that makes games.

Minor correction.... GW views itself as a company that makes models. The rules are incidental.

The real issue in my mind is that GW has lost its focus. They want to sell models. Not games and rules. As such they don't give the rules the attention it deserves. But it still takes man hours to put together what they do have and as such they jack the price of the mini to compensate. But now your pricing the mini out of reach as well.

I have yet to buy a hardback codex because the content of the book is not worth what they are charging. If the book was 30$ I'd probably have bought three of them by now.

And its not like I don't spend money. I spend probably 2000 a year on hobby/gaming stuff. GW hasn't seen a penny of that in three years because the value of the GW hobby has greatly deminished. And it was the hobby that got me into it in the first place.

 Psienesis wrote:

GW is a company that makes games.

Minor correction.... GW views itself as a company that makes models. The rules are incidental.

Your second sentence is an unsupported assertion. GW clearly regard themselves as a maker of models first and foremost, but the pricetag they put on their rules suggest that they are far from "incidental".