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.

Just a sidenote. The polish GW fb page (there is an official GW store in Warsaw) kept deleting negative comments about the Age of Sigmar. The angry fans asked why - and here's the reply:

Games Workshop: Warsaw "Bo chcemy żeby tutaj pojawiały się tylko pozytywne opinie. Tyle w tym temacie Negatywne komentarze bedziemy usuwac, na nie jest mnóstwo miejsca na różnych forach itp."

Translation: Because we want only positive opinions here. That's all We will delete all negative comments, there is a lot of place for those on forums and so on.

Well that's one way to handle fans I guess?

 Kahnawake wrote:
Just a sidenote. The polish GW fb page (there is an official GW store in Warsaw) kept deleting negative comments about the Age of Sigmar. The angry fans asked why - and here's the reply:

Games Workshop: Warsaw "Bo chcemy żeby tutaj pojawiały się tylko pozytywne opinie. Tyle w tym temacie Negatywne komentarze bedziemy usuwac, na nie jest mnóstwo miejsca na różnych forach itp."

Translation: Because we want only positive opinions here. That's all We will delete all negative comments, there is a lot of place for those on forums and so on.

Well that's one way to handle fans I guess?

Well to be fair, the FB page isn't and shouldn't be seen as an independent and free space to comment whatever the hell people want - it is the GW store's product page and they are trying to promote their product so I am not surprised they are deleting negative comments. If you want to read and post what you want then you are always better off on an independent and impartial site.

Like Dakka

Yeah thank the Emperor dakka is not ran by GW

Well, if we are to believe that GW are past masters of wargame figure design and manufacturing -- and why not after 35 years experience -- then we must assume the over scale size of the AOS models is deliberate.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
What gw got back in terms of comments was often best described as 'white noise' in terms of its value. The little nuggets of value were drowned out by the negativity and gw simply didn't have tge time, resources or inclination to go through it all, and in any case whatever direction they picked would be seen as 'wrong' by a large secment of the community, so they just got on with their job of making and selling models.

Then they were doing it wrong.

Indeed - but it was done wrong by both playtesters and gw. the play testers for the most part were an ill disciplined lot with a barely-professional (and often hostile) attitude most of the time (there were exceptions) , and they didn't add anything of value bar noise and leaked everything, and gw didn't bother listening to the nuggets of wisdom that were hidden in the rest of the white noise.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that players are above criticism either hbmc.

Deadnight wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
What gw got back in terms of comments was often best described as 'white noise' in terms of its value. The little nuggets of value were drowned out by the negativity and gw simply didn't have tge time, resources or inclination to go through it all, and in any case whatever direction they picked would be seen as 'wrong' by a large secment of the community, so they just got on with their job of making and selling models.

Then they were doing it wrong.

Indeed - but it was done wrong by both playtesters and gw. the play testers for the most part were an ill disciplined lot with a barely-professional (and often hostile) attitude most of the time (there were exceptions) , and they didn't add anything of value bar noise and leaked everything, and gw didn't bother listening to the nuggets of wisdom that were hidden in the rest of the white noise.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that players are above criticism either hbmc.

I think the point here is that GW set up the entire process so it's ultimately their fault for the product they received. Don't like how it's working? Change it, but instead they tossed it out the window and went to nearly no playtesting at all.

Indeed. Perhaps the poor quality of playtesters was related to the way GW selected and briefed them.

 agnosto wrote:

I think the point here is that GW set up the entire process so it's ultimately their fault for the product they received. Don't like how it's working? Change it, but instead they tossed it out the window and went to nearly no playtesting at all.

So ultimately it's gw's fault? With this, whether intentionally or not, you are effectively trying to exonerate the play testers/players of all 'guilt', input and responsibility for things. you are effectively hand waving away the players responsibilities for their negative input and negative attitudes to the game. Like I said, it's not gw's fault that the play testers did more whining and moaning than gaming and feedback - that's on the players, and frankly is not an isolated example of this kind of behaviour within the gaming community.

I'm not sure I can entirely agree with you that it's all on gw. A lot of it is, but we share the burden too. Don't get me wrong agnosto - I'd like to agree with you, but I can't. At least not entirely.

Don't get me wrong. Gw screwed up the play testing in so many ways - the privateer press mk2 and malifaux second ed play tests so how it can engage the community, and get excellent feedback- they did it right. Gw hold too much stock in 'containing' information, rather than engaging the player base. But the player base itself is arguably a toxic and fractious lot, often at it's own throat: I can see how they imagine dealing with it to be far more trouble than it's worth.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Indeed. Perhaps the poor quality of playtesters was related to the way GW selected and briefed them.

Some of the groups were really good though - let's be clear on that. The rest? Is it that gw selected poor ones or that they were just representative of a poor community? I think it's sone where in the middle myself...

Deadnight wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

I think the point here is that GW set up the entire process so it's ultimately their fault for the product they received. Don't like how it's working? Change it, but instead they tossed it out the window and went to nearly no playtesting at all.

So ultimately it's gw's fault? With this, whether intentionally or not, you are effectively trying to exonerate the play testers/players of all 'guilt', input and responsibility for things. you are effectively hand waving away the players responsibilities for their negative input and negative attitudes to the game. Like I said, it's not gw's fault that the play testers did more whining and moaning than gaming and feedback - that's on the players, and frankly is not an isolated example of this kind of behaviour within the gaming community.

I'm not sure I can entirely agree with you that it's all on gw. A lot of it is, but we share the burden too. Don't get me wrong agnosto - I'd like to agree with you, but I can't. At least not entirely.

Don't get me wrong. Gw screwed up the play testing in so many ways - the privateer press mk2 and malifaux second ed play tests so how it can engage the community, and get excellent feedback- they did it right. Gw hold too much stock in 'containing' information, rather than engaging the player base. But the player base itself is arguably a toxic and fractious lot, often at it's own throat: I can see how they imagine dealing with it to be far more trouble than it's worth.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Indeed. Perhaps the poor quality of playtesters was related to the way GW selected and briefed them.

Some of the groups were really good though - let's be clear on that. The rest? Is it that gw selected poor ones or that they were just representative of a poor community? I think it's sone where in the middle myself...

Sure it's GW's fault, they're the company. If you get shoddy results from a round of playtesting, look at the process, determine inefficiencies and reset; it's almost like running a business.

I don't play WM/H but by all accounts, their open MKII beta-testing was a smashing success that ultimately caused their game to catapult in sales. I'm not saying that such a model would work for GW, even if they were willing to go that route, but it's ultimately much better than, "well, we tried and it didn't work, it's back to the workshop and fixed lists lads!" Companies do not have the luxury to set-up products for failure and if your unpaid test-monkeys screw-up you reset or find better quality test-monkeys you don't just scrap the whole system in favor of....nothing.

Edit:

Let me put it to you this way. I run several projects (8 to be exact) simultaneously with income in the millions of dollars per annum. At the end of the day, it's my fault if my employees do not do what they're supposed to do or if something else is cocked-up along the way; sure, they are the ones who messed it up but it's my rear on the line because it's my job to keep these projects humming along. It's GW's job to keep the games humming along, not the playtesters.

 agnosto wrote:

Sure it's GW's fault, they're the company. If you get shoddy results from a round of playtesting, look at the process, determine inefficiencies and reset; it's almost like running a business.

And if it's too much hassle for hardly any results, with plenty risk exposure, you cut your losses and kill it. Also a part of business 101. And running a business. Resets aren't always a thing...

 agnosto wrote:

I don't play WM/H but by all accounts, their open MKII beta-testing was a smashing success that ultimately caused their game to catapult in sales. I'm not saying that such a model would work for GW, even if they were willing to go that route, but it's ultimately much better than, "well, we tried and it didn't work, it's back to the workshop and fixed lists lads!" Companies do not have the luxury to set-up products for failure and if your unpaid test-monkeys screw-up you reset or find better quality test-monkeys you don't just scrap the whole system in favor of....nothing.

Mark2 play test was brilliant. It set up a great game and helped me fall in love with wargames again

Deadnight wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Sure it's GW's fault, they're the company. If you get shoddy results from a round of playtesting, look at the process, determine inefficiencies and reset; it's almost like running a business.

And if it's too much hassle for hardly any results, with plenty risk exposure, you cut your losses and kill it. Also a part of business 101. And running a business. Resets aren't always a thing...

 agnosto wrote:

I don't play WM/H but by all accounts, their open MKII beta-testing was a smashing success that ultimately caused their game to catapult in sales. I'm not saying that such a model would work for GW, even if they were willing to go that route, but it's ultimately much better than, "well, we tried and it didn't work, it's back to the workshop and fixed lists lads!" Companies do not have the luxury to set-up products for failure and if your unpaid test-monkeys screw-up you reset or find better quality test-monkeys you don't just scrap the whole system in favor of....nothing.

Mark2 play test was brilliant. It set up a great game and helped me fall in love with wargames again

There's a dissonance between your two responses. Company A axes open playtesting, Company B performs it to resounding success.

Again, when running projects/businesses; if something doesn't work but has potential, you don't just arbitrarily toss it out the window in favor of something that has resulted in years of unbalanced gack rules. Or, at the very least, you go realize that you've gone to a system of gack rules production and consider moving back to a version of the old system OR do something different. Proactive over inactive because inactive yields negative results (see financial report).

Deadnight wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Sure it's GW's fault, they're the company. If you get shoddy results from a round of playtesting, look at the process, determine inefficiencies and reset; it's almost like running a business.

And if it's too much hassle for hardly any results, with plenty risk exposure, you cut your losses and kill it. Also a part of business 101. And running a business. Resets aren't always a thing...

Only if you've established that there are no ways to improve it.

Tighter NDA's would be a start, delayed rewards until release another. Hire some proof readers and maths students to have a pop at the rules. Hire some of the tourney players to do testing, in a room in GW HQ, under supervision. There's all sorts of options that are better than "It didn't work, kill it"

Herzlos wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Sure it's GW's fault, they're the company. If you get shoddy results from a round of playtesting, look at the process, determine inefficiencies and reset; it's almost like running a business.

And if it's too much hassle for hardly any results, with plenty risk exposure, you cut your losses and kill it. Also a part of business 101. And running a business. Resets aren't always a thing...

Only if you've established that there are no ways to improve it.

Tighter NDA's would be a start, delayed rewards until release another. Hire some proof readers and maths students to have a pop at the rules. Hire some of the tourney players to do testing, in a room in GW HQ, under supervision. There's all sorts of options that are better than "It didn't work, kill it"

Or just be free and open with it like PP did. Success/Failure/Reward. GW's iron curtain public policy would never allow them to even preview a FREE ruleset before release, that should indicate something. We are not customers, we are the enemy. It's the antagonistic relationship that GW has developed with its customers that is the real problem here.

TBH if GW's player community is sad, anti-social, disruptive and bad at playtesting, doesn't that say something about GW?

Other wargame companies manage to do playtesting without such dramas. Maybe GW games and HHHobby culture for some reason attract the wrong type of person.

However I feel this is an argument that is in danger of disappearing up its own bottom.

It only matters to the financial situation if GW have made a bad mistake by not investing in play-testing and marketing of new games.

Initial reactions to AOS are at least 50/50 pro/anti but I have no feel for whether that is a good result or a bad one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kahnawake wrote:
Just a sidenote. The polish GW fb page (there is an official GW store in Warsaw) kept deleting negative comments about the Age of Sigmar. The angry fans asked why - and here's the reply:

Games Workshop: Warsaw "Bo chcemy żeby tutaj pojawiały się tylko pozytywne opinie. Tyle w tym temacie Negatywne komentarze bedziemy usuwac, na nie jest mnóstwo miejsca na różnych forach itp."

Translation: Because we want only positive opinions here. That's all We will delete all negative comments, there is a lot of place for those on forums and so on.

Well that's one way to handle fans I guess?

If that happened in the UK it would be borderline illegal under Advertising Standards Authority rules. A bit like those film posters that pick the positive bits out of reviews to make the film seem more successful than actually it is.

WM and Hordes Mark II playtesting had plenty of drama in the fan base, make no mistake. It's just that DC, Will, and the others not only were open about the playtest but they actually listened to the feedback (Zaal's feat early on for example was utterly game breaking).

12thRonin wrote:
WM and Hordes Mark II playtesting had plenty of drama in the fan base, make no mistake. It's just that DC, Will, and the others not only were open about the playtest but they actually listened to the feedback (Zaal's feat early on for example was utterly game breaking).

You know, that right there is the best way to deal with such drama in play testing.

The company gets to be the adult in the (virtual) room and act professionally. Respond with well reasoned answers and attempt to address concerns as much as possible. Accept that you'll never make everyone happy, but attempt to address every even remotely legitimate concern (even if the only response is acknowledging that concern exists).

If the company at least gives the believable impression that they seek to work with the public in the play testing, that will go a long way to engender a general sense of good will from the customers.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

Knockagh wrote:
All this aside folks. AoS seems to be pretty flippin popular and could put a good LOTR size bump on the balance sheet.

As someone who worked in a GW during that 'bump', I will say.. not a chance in hell !

Unless AoS is being stocked in bookstores and other places like the original LotR games were 15 years ago, then I don't see too many outsiders finding out about it to make a bump.

Ok perhaps I exaggerated this a little or a lot

agnosto wrote:
There's a dissonance between your two responses. Company A axes open playtesting, Company B performs it to resounding success.

Again, when running projects/businesses; if something doesn't work but has potential, you don't just arbitrarily toss it out the window in favor of something that has resulted in years of unbalanced gack rules. Or, at the very least, you go realize that you've gone to a system of gack rules production and consider moving back to a version of the old system OR do something different. Proactive over inactive because inactive yields negative results (see financial report).

The 'dissonance' though is just the difference between my personal opinion regarding the pp field test, and discussing playtesting in general. Dealing with gamers is hazardous. We are a toxic community, and dealing with us can be like herding cards. Sometimes it's just not worth it,

I fully agree with the rest of what you say, personally. Thst said, the alternative narrative is that playtesting requires time and resources, of which one or both may be in short supply. Continuing on that road with issues, versus a hard reset? Arguably, not worth it. At least from their perspective.

Herzlos wrote:
Only if you've established that there are no ways to improve it.

Tighter NDA's would be a start, delayed rewards until release another. Hire some proof readers and maths students to have a pop at the rules. Hire some of the tourney players to do testing, in a room in GW HQ, under supervision. There's all sorts of options that are better than "It didn't work, kill it"

All of which requires time, money and personnel, of which one, two or all may be lacking. There is a cost/reward thing going on there, and gw seemingly said it wasn't worth it - in my mind, they see it as irrelevant for the people they want to sell their product to, and irrelevant to the type of game they want 40k to be (ie chop and change and alter the things you don't like).

Kilkrazy wrote:TBH if GW's player community is sad, anti-social, disruptive and bad at playtesting, doesn't that say something about GW?

Other wargame companies manage to do playtesting without such dramas. Maybe GW games and HHHobby culture for some reason attract the wrong type of person.
.

So it's gw's fault that the player commune is sad, anti social, disruptive and bad at playtesting? Wow mate, that's... That's hand waving on a whole different level!

You see those traits exhibited by members of every geek subculture. The Internet just magnifies it.

sadly, those traits are gamer traits, and gamer (sub)culture and are present regardless of whatever company is making whatever game. Sadly, too many gamers as a general group are lazy, toxic, smug, self interested, self entitled, over-invested and not very open minded. It's got nothing to do with gw, just ourselves as a community.

Deadnight wrote:


So it's gw's fault that the player commune is sad, anti social, disruptive and bad at playtesting? Wow mate, that's... That's hand waving on a whole different level!

You see those traits exhibited by members of every geek subculture. The Internet just magnifies it.

sadly, those traits are gamer traits, and gamer (sub)culture and are present regardless of whatever company is making whatever game. Sadly, too many gamers as a general group are lazy, toxic, smug, self interested, self entitled, over-invested and not very open minded. It's got nothing to do with gw, just ourselves as a community.

I think that what Kilkrazy means is that a GW fan = a PP fan = a Wyrd fan = a CB fan.

There shouldn't be anything to differentiate any of them from one another.

So why is GW's community always represented as toxic to the extremes that some people even blame them for leading GW to retreat from having any online presence whatsoever, but the fans of those other miniature wargames have managed to help produce things like the WMH Mk2 and Malifaux V2 or the Infinity tournament system?

Isn't the sole differentiating factor between those communities the way that the parent company behaves and interacts with its fans?

Deadnight wrote:

agnosto wrote:
There's a dissonance between your two responses. Company A axes open playtesting, Company B performs it to resounding success.

Again, when running projects/businesses; if something doesn't work but has potential, you don't just arbitrarily toss it out the window in favor of something that has resulted in years of unbalanced gack rules. Or, at the very least, you go realize that you've gone to a system of gack rules production and consider moving back to a version of the old system OR do something different. Proactive over inactive because inactive yields negative results (see financial report).

The 'dissonance' though is just the difference between my personal opinion regarding the pp field test, and discussing playtesting in general. Dealing with gamers is hazardous. We are a toxic community, and dealing with us can be like herding cards. Sometimes it's just not worth it,

I fully agree with the rest of what you say, personally. Thst said, the alternative narrative is that playtesting requires time and resources, of which one or both may be in short supply. Continuing on that road with issues, versus a hard reset? Arguably, not worth it. At least from their perspective.

Herzlos wrote:
Only if you've established that there are no ways to improve it.

Tighter NDA's would be a start, delayed rewards until release another. Hire some proof readers and maths students to have a pop at the rules. Hire some of the tourney players to do testing, in a room in GW HQ, under supervision. There's all sorts of options that are better than "It didn't work, kill it"

All of which requires time, money and personnel, of which one, two or all may be lacking. There is a cost/reward thing going on there, and gw seemingly said it wasn't worth it - in my mind, they see it as irrelevant for the people they want to sell their product to, and irrelevant to the type of game they want 40k to be (ie chop and change and alter the things you don't like).

Kilkrazy wrote:TBH if GW's player community is sad, anti-social, disruptive and bad at playtesting, doesn't that say something about GW?

Other wargame companies manage to do playtesting without such dramas. Maybe GW games and HHHobby culture for some reason attract the wrong type of person.
.

So it's gw's fault that the player commune is sad, anti social, disruptive and bad at playtesting? Wow mate, that's... That's hand waving on a whole different level!

You see those traits exhibited by members of every geek subculture. The Internet just magnifies it.

sadly, those traits are gamer traits, and gamer (sub)culture and are present regardless of whatever company is making whatever game. Sadly, too many gamers as a general group are lazy, toxic, smug, self interested, self entitled, over-invested and not very open minded. It's got nothing to do with gw, just ourselves as a community.

So a small player like PP can put a successful open beta-test together but the big player with all the resources, GW, is unable to for some reason? I guess that I just don't get it. I know that from personal experience in the business world, the more resources that a company has, the better a product they are generally able to produce. GW arguably has more money and people than other companies so why the gack rules?

It's a dangerous thing to lump a larger group of people into a smaller subset. Besides, if a company treats its customers as "toxic" then they run the danger of engendering a culture and atmosphere of distrust and resentment between themselves and their supposed consumer base.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, if we are to believe that GW are past masters of wargame figure design and manufacturing -- and why not after 35 years experience -- then we must assume the over scale size of the AOS models is deliberate.

Absolutely deliberate.

At every point in their existence Citadel/GW have gone out of their way to part with existing standards to force people to depend solely upon their products, and to be unable to use their products with others' products.

They started the "Scale Creep" in the fantasy miniatures back in 1983/84, which has only continued to the present, where their miniatures are beginning to close in on 40mm/50mm.

Personally, I would like to see a return to 25mm miniatures (and no, the Perry's stuff is NOT "True-25mm." Real Partha's miniatures were/are True-25mm, and they are tiny compared to the Perry's stuff, or the LotR lines, which are more 28mm/30mm miniatures - closer to 30mm).


MB

PhantomViper wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


So it's gw's fault that the player commune is sad, anti social, disruptive and bad at playtesting? Wow mate, that's... That's hand waving on a whole different level!

You see those traits exhibited by members of every geek subculture. The Internet just magnifies it.

sadly, those traits are gamer traits, and gamer (sub)culture and are present regardless of whatever company is making whatever game. Sadly, too many gamers as a general group are lazy, toxic, smug, self interested, self entitled, over-invested and not very open minded. It's got nothing to do with gw, just ourselves as a community.

I think that what Kilkrazy means is that a GW fan = a PP fan = a Wyrd fan = a CB fan.

There shouldn't be anything to differentiate any of them from one another.

So why is GW's community always represented as toxic to the extremes that some people even blame them for leading GW to retreat from having any online presence whatsoever, but the fans of those other miniature wargames have managed to help produce things like the WMH Mk2 and Malifaux V2 or the Infinity tournament system?

Isn't the sole differentiating factor between those communities the way that the parent company behaves and interacts with its fans?

Yes, lots of other wargame companies manage to do play testing. Why should GW, the biggest, richest and most experienced, have such trouble they found it useless.

Why is it that now their latest rulebook has a number of very obvious flaws despite being only 4 pages? It took about 10 minutes for people to point out the problems with movement and bases.

Deadnight wrote:


So it's gw's fault that the player commune is sad, anti social, disruptive and bad at playtesting? Wow mate, that's... That's hand waving on a whole different level!

You see those traits exhibited by members of every geek subculture. The Internet just magnifies it.

sadly, those traits are gamer traits, and gamer (sub)culture and are present regardless of whatever company is making whatever game. Sadly, too many gamers as a general group are lazy, toxic, smug, self interested, self entitled, over-invested and not very open minded. It's got nothing to do with gw, just ourselves as a community.

Yes it is 100% GWs fault, how is that even a question. Who do you think PICKs the playtesters, some ramdon guy off the internet. Other company seem to pick playtester gruop that are not a bunch of self intersted pricks. Funny how GW can't and people want us to just let them slide, because what they are the biggest company in the market, so can't do what the little guys figured out from day one, really?

Noir wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


So it's gw's fault that the player commune is sad, anti social, disruptive and bad at playtesting? Wow mate, that's... That's hand waving on a whole different level!

You see those traits exhibited by members of every geek subculture. The Internet just magnifies it.

sadly, those traits are gamer traits, and gamer (sub)culture and are present regardless of whatever company is making whatever game. Sadly, too many gamers as a general group are lazy, toxic, smug, self interested, self entitled, over-invested and not very open minded. It's got nothing to do with gw, just ourselves as a community.

Yes it is 100% GWs fault, how is that even a question. Who do you think PICKs the playtesters, some ramdon guy off the internet. Other company seem to pick playtester gruop that are not a bunch of self intersted pricks. Funny how GW can't and people want us to just let them slide, because what they are the biggest company in the market, so can't do what the little guys figured out from day one, really?

Well, they were obviously chosen for attitude, just like GW's hiring practices dictate...and playtesting is otiose in a niche market, obviously.

I think you can blame a multimillion dollar company for being "lazy, toxic, smug, self interested, and self entitled, and over (or under) invested" more than you can blame individual players.

Sorry, but you have to realize, corporations are still people, and those people from top to bottom can be just as flawed. What's worse is that those flaws have even greater effect as its amplified by the corporate decisions at the top.

 Vertrucio wrote:
I think you can blame a multimillion dollar company for being "lazy, toxic, smug, self interested, and self entitled, and over (or under) invested" more than you can blame individual players.

Sorry, but you have to realize, corporations are still people, and those people from top to bottom can be just as flawed. What's worse is that those flaws have even greater effect as its amplified by the corporate decisions at the top.

This is something the average person often forgets. Big organizations (corporations, governments, NGO's, etc.) are ultimately all run by people and are subject to the same flaws in character present in all the rest of us. When manifested a key positions which exert a lot of authority or influence, those character flaws in those organizations can have disproportionately large impact.

PhantomViper wrote:

I think that what Kilkrazy means is that a GW fan = a PP fan = a Wyrd fan = a CB fan.

There shouldn't be anything to differentiate any of them from one another.

Not strictly true. Or only true by the metric that they're all miniature wargames fans. It's like saying soccer fans and rugby fans and cricket fans are the same. No, not necessarily - they're all sports fans but they're all there for different things. Fans of pp games might not like cb's aesthetics, sci-fi nature of small scale. A lot of pp fans want different things to a lot of gw fans etc. I know the low model count and the nature of both infinity and WMH have turned off various people who liked what 40k had. Some found infinity really boring (:p I know, right!).

PhantomViper wrote:
So why is GW's community always represented as toxic to the extremes that some people even blame them for leading GW to retreat from having any online presence whatsoever, but the fans of those other miniature wargames have managed to help produce things like the WMH Mk2 and Malifaux V2 or the Infinity tournament system?

Plenty pp fans are just as toxic. There's plenty pp players I want nothing to do with. There's one guy in my city who has probably run off about a dozen prospects. You hear borrow stories of 'page 5 l2p noob', when we all know that that's not what it's all about. Thing is 40k is bigger than warmachine, as is their online communities so the voices are 'louder' and therefore there is more, more obvious toxicity.

PhantomViper wrote:
Isn't the sole differentiating factor between those communities the way that the parent company behaves and interacts with its fans?

PP does plenty howlers and cb have been deserving of some criticism in the past. Neither has the number of players or the legacy in terms of time in existence as 40k - although warmachine is getting on to fifteen years now...

agnosto wrote:
So a small player like PP can put a successful open beta-test together but the big player with all the resources, GW, is unable to for some reason? I guess that I just don't get it. I know that from personal experience in the business world, the more resources that a company has, the better a product they are generally able to produce. GW arguably has more money and people than other companies so why the gack rules?

Yup, apparently. Let's not forget that gw has its own massive retail arm as well as in house manufacturing. Along with world wide infrastructure. Pp doesn't. And didn't. Five years ago, for mk2, they could just get on with the job - it was a smaller game than it is now. If mk2 happened now, it would be a gargantuan undertaking - pp would creak and groan at the seams, if they'd see it as worth it at all. The bigger you are, the more you have to worry about that isn't just game based.

Let's not also forget the company mantra of 'we're a model company first', rules are an afterthought.

agnosto wrote:It's a dangerous thing to lump a larger group of people into a smaller subset. Besides, if a company treats its customers as "toxic" then they run the danger of engendering a culture and atmosphere of distrust and resentment between themselves and their supposed consumer base.

Oh agreed, the issue is the player base, as I see it, does little to help itself either...

Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, lots of other wargame companies manage to do play testing. Why should GW, the biggest, richest and most experienced, have such trouble they found it useless.

Combine historic negative experience (ie leaks Etc) with an attitude that they want to put responsibility for how the game is played in the hands of gamers, along with a favouring of 'beer and pretzels' gaming over organised play - it's not hard to see how playtesting isn't the number one thing. Bear in mind, I'm not agreeing with them - just trying to see it from their perspective. Remember, they want to design games for people who play at each other's homes, with a few beers and house rule and mod the gsme as they see fit. What's the point in playtesting when those who buy are just going to rebuild it anyway? Just get on with building pretty models... Just extra expense and time wasted, and your design studio has better things to be doing on company time thst rolling dice with their space marines...

Kilkrazy wrote:
Why is it that now their latest rulebook has a number of very obvious flaws despite being only 4 pages? It took about 10 minutes for people to point out the problems with movement and bases.

'So change it' is what they'd answer with. Forge the narrative and all that guff.

Gw are finally embracing 'we are a model company first. Rules.. Pfft!' Christ, what did you expect?

Don't get me wrong kill crazy - the rules are pretty shocking. But it's par for the course really.

Noir wrote:


Yes it is 100% GWs fault, how is that even a question. Who do you think PICKs the playtesters, some ramdon guy off the internet. Other company seem to pick playtester gruop that are not a bunch of self intersted pricks. Funny how GW can't and people want us to just let them slide, because what they are the biggest company in the market, so can't do what the little guys figured out from day one, really?

And look at the materials they have to work with - a toxic schizophrenic community more often at its own throat than anything else.

Gw want you to buy their models. Anything else-hey it's up to you. It's even in the rulebook. Don't like something? Then bloody well change it.

I get it - I really do. I love warmachine and infinity. I love organised play. But a lot of people find that very same structure and organisation very restrictive and stifling. So yeah, do what you want.

Saldiven wrote:

 Vertrucio wrote:
I think you can blame a multimillion dollar company for being "lazy, toxic, smug, self interested, and self entitled, and over (or under) invested" more than you can blame individual players.

Sorry, but you have to realize, corporations are still people, and those people from top to bottom can be just as flawed. What's worse is that those flaws have even greater effect as its amplified by the corporate decisions at the top.

This is something the average person often forgets. Big organizations (corporations, governments, NGO's, etc.) are ultimately all run by people and are subject to the same flaws in character present in all the rest of us. When manifested a key positions which exert a lot of authority or influence, those character flaws in those organizations can have disproportionately large impact.

Which is why they are supposed to have balancing factors (i.e. a Board to oversee the CEO, a Chairman to oversee the Board and the overall Board to oversee the Chairmen). The problem is when you see a company that has become so incestuous that no one will gainsay the Chairman. Barring major stockholders standing up (little chance with them being institutional stockholders) Mr. Kirby has free reign to do what he likes with his little kingdom.

Comparing a group of table top miniatures wargames to a group of entirely different sports is disingenuous at best.

Sports fan is to soccer as table top games fan is to miniature wargames.

Comparing and contrasting to products within a niche of a niche of a niche is far more akin to comparing NASCAR to Formula One. There are differences, sure, but the sorts of differences someone who doesn't give a gack about motor sports does not really appreciate or care about.

More importantly, the interests of a NASCAR fan and a Formula One fan overlap very significantly.

Deadnight wrote:

Noir wrote:


Yes it is 100% GWs fault, how is that even a question. Who do you think PICKs the playtesters, some ramdon guy off the internet. Other company seem to pick playtester gruop that are not a bunch of self intersted pricks. Funny how GW can't and people want us to just let them slide, because what they are the biggest company in the market, so can't do what the little guys figured out from day one, really?

And look at the materials they have to work with - a toxic schizophrenic community more often at its own throat than anything else.

Gw want you to buy their models. Anything else-hey it's up to you. It's even in the rulebook. Don't like something? Then bloody well change it.

I get it - I really do. I love warmachine and infinity. I love organised play. But a lot of people find that very same structure and organisation very restrictive and stifling. So yeah, do what you want.

You mean the target market and fan base GW created themself. Yes, 100% GWs fault, no way around it. The rest of the quote is pointless to this fact.