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.

Well, I can understand if fantasy isn't as popular as SF nowadays. It may be very possible. It's obvious with the "hype" on Tau and the coming Horus Heresy box is quite high in comparison with news for AoS (on the other hand, I must say that the lizardmen with just repackaged boxes is quite...well, no new miniature, after all. Just a new Battletome. Not the same, thus).

About the 80% ratio in GW customers...actually, it makes a lot of sense. You can see their products are more and more about the "collector" thing. And they sell. So, there are people willing to buy these just for the sake of collection alone.

How many people did buy a box just for the pleasure of having it? I think it's not that low in reality.

So, yeah...AoS is made so that you can have fun with your collection.

 Sarouan wrote:
Well, I can understand if fantasy isn't as popular as SF nowadays. It may be very possible. It's obvious with the "hype" on Tau and the coming Horus Heresy box is quite high in comparison with news for AoS (on the other hand, I must say that the lizardmen with just repackaged boxes is quite...well, no new miniature, after all. Just a new Battletome. Not the same, thus).

About the 80% ratio in GW customers...actually, it makes a lot of sense. You can see their products are more and more about the "collector" thing. And they sell. So, there are people willing to buy these just for the sake of collection alone.

How many people did buy a box just for the pleasure of having it? I think it's not that low in reality.

So, yeah...AoS is made so that you can have fun with your collection.

Let me just make sure I understand what you're saying - You're saying you believe that 80% of the GW customers have never played/will never play a GW game?

 pox wrote:

There is some irony to this mis-quote, and I think it applies even more to GW.

The quote is "you can FOOL some of the people all of the time; you can FOOL all of the people some of the time; but you can never FOOL all of the people all of the time."

It also wasn't PT Barnum who said it. The actual original quote, by 15th century poet John Lydgate, used "please" instead of "fool", with the latter being misattributed to Abraham Lincoln about 50 years after his death. That was then later misattributed to PT Barnum. PT Barnum also didn't say "There's a sucker born every minute" - but that doesn't make it any less true.

 Sarouan wrote:


So, yeah...AoS is made so that you can have fun with your collection.

It use to be that you had a collection to have fun. That's how I operated. I had fun...I added to my collection...I had more fun. GW is now operating under some assumption that people will build a collection just for the sake of building a collection.

Other than stamps, has there ever been a hobby based on such a premise?

Shotgun wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:


So, yeah...AoS is made so that you can have fun with your collection.

It use to be that you had a collection to have fun. That's how I operated. I had fun...I added to my collection...I had more fun. GW is now operating under some assumption that people will build a collection just for the sake of building a collection.

Other than stamps, has there ever been a hobby based on such a premise?

Pins.

Shotgun wrote:

Other than stamps, has there ever been a hobby based on such a premise?

Pogs. Beanie Babies. Garbage Pail Kids. Pez Dispensers. Baseball Cards. Military Hegemony?

 Sqorgar wrote:

 pox wrote:

There is some irony to this mis-quote, and I think it applies even more to GW.

The quote is "you can FOOL some of the people all of the time; you can FOOL all of the people some of the time; but you can never FOOL all of the people all of the time."

It also wasn't PT Barnum who said it. The actual original quote, by 15th century poet John Lydgate, used "please" instead of "fool", with the latter being misattributed to Abraham Lincoln about 50 years after his death. That was then later misattributed to PT Barnum. PT Barnum also didn't say "There's a sucker born every minute" - but that doesn't make it any less true.

Let me level with you, and kinda cool the room. I love citadel miniatures. I always have, and for a lot of reasons I stopped playing other games. The main reason was due to having too many armies from companies that went belly up. Anyone want to play Chronopia or VOR? In addition to that, every specialist game has been canceled. Lastly, the only shop I like going to is a GW shop.

So age of sigmar drops, and right off the bat my army is toast. What I mean is I played a clan morrs list, all warriors and slaves. no matter how you slice it, it's not a viable list for AoS. I do play, I bring either a fast moving eshin force, a skryre gunline, or a melee mix of rat ogres, stormvermin, and plague monks. (this gives me three "tiers" of armies.) so the game can be played, and I can bring hard lists or soft lists, but the bulk of my models are useless. (adding insult to injury all my units are on regimental bases and they don't make 20mm round bases.)

Second, it was not all that well received. I have to call ahead to the shop to see if anyone is playing. I only have time about once a month, so aside from when it dropped and I was not working, I usually just play 40k.

Third, the game is OK but I find that I have to always change stuff. even if I'm fine RAW my opponents usually aren't and want to try various scenarios/comps/builds. This means every encounter is vastly different, and sometimes I don't have whats needed. Again, I bring 2000 points of 40K and adjust to 1250, 1500, 500, etc.

Lastly, and this is the most important, AoS would need to outsell fantasy by a large margin or they will drop the game. I base this off the fact that I can't buy any specialist game. Originally this was due to shelf space but with so much direct only its obvious they don't want to support a game that does not sell well. They want a game that sells as much as 40K. I don't think they will keep re-launching fantasy, I think their thought will just be that a fantasy setting is not what the players want. I firmly believe that fantasy will go away within two years. Especially with the run-at-the-store that is about to happen with Horus Heresy.

so That's where I'm at. Everything else is just talking back and forth, but it is my experience that AoS will not be supported, and GW moves to slow to fix the problem even if they were aware of the issues.

And we haven't even touched upon the subject of 40k, and the lines that they're are going to drastically alter that too.

All of this is just my personal thoughts and experiences, and I really go out of my way to not assume what anyone else is thinking or to assume that their point of view is wrong because it's different.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I'm saying you have no way of knowing. You didn't know I existed until I join Dakka - after I started getting serious about Age of Sigmar. Who knows how many other people are out there, buying miniatures and not interacting with the community at large? And anecdotal evidence is not better than anything, as it can lead you to jump to conclusions based on an incomplete picture drawn by your own confirmation bias. It is better to assume nothing than rely on faulty observations.

And taking shots in the dark clearly isn't working for GW.

Seriously, consider for a moment what AoS is. It is the brand spankin' new core product line from what is still the industry leader in a time where the industry seems to have never been bigger. It is the replacement and continuation of a game with 30 years of history behind it. It should by all rights be the biggest thing in gaming right now, or perhaps the second biggest behind 40k.

And yet, as we established, lukewarm reception at best. Doesn't that say something about the company producing it and how well they know their market?

 Sqorgar wrote:
Honestly, I'm not a business major, so I don't feel comfortable saying what a smart company would or wouldn't do. Needless to say, not every business does market research or relies on it to the extent you seem to want GW to.

Fun fact, I legitimately tried to look for a list of companies that don't do market research and the whole first page of google was just links telling me that market research is good. Apple doesn't though, we know that much. And, as much as I think their products are overpirced for what they are, they have apparently been closing the gap on Samsung in the mobile market, now taking up a whopping 13.6% market share to Smasung's 24.4% (both moved about 1 percent in opposite directions on last year, I'm also not entirely sure how reliable 247wallst.com is so feel free to call me on it if those numbers are wrong).

 Sqorgar wrote:

I'm pretty sure that luxury goods merely survive through recessions, not profit from them. As in, their sales will drop (like everybody else's), but the market will not disappear completely.

I was going to try to find the exact quote when Kirby said the global recession didn't effect them but it is 2am here so I gave up. I will point out that every other company in the market is operating in the exact same economic circumstances as GW and that doesn't seem to have affected their sales whatsoever, in fact the Hobby itself seems to have seen massive growth in recent years (I believe ICV2 reported the 'hobby' market to have doubled in size in North America between 2008 and 2013 or so, but they cound card games and board games in that too).

 Sqorgar wrote:
You are like, super hung up on this market research thing, aren't you? Does it upset you that GW doesn't ask you personally how they should run their company?

Of course? Why else would I be saying this. Certainly not because I want them to succeed and be the kind of company I can love again.

 Sqorgar wrote:
What makes you think it wouldn't be? From what I understand, the WHFB fans weren't that large a group. Even at its height, it was smaller than 40k was. So you can make the very easy argument that 40k fans could support fantasy better than WHFB fans ever could. So if they were going to reboot Warhammer in an effort to make it more popular, should they keep it like it was (WHFB fans barely keeping it profitable, and leaving faster than they could be replaced by new players) or make it more like 40k (which would cannibalize their own playerbase)? Or perhaps they should take a third option altogether?

This is the exact damn reason market research is important, these are questions that might have been answered.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Except TSR started in 1973 and Games Workshop started in 1975, and one of those is still around today. Hint: not TSR.

Irrelevant. Even Rome fell eventually.

 Sqorgar wrote:
The copyright thing is a matter of scale. It happens to every corporation that reaches a specific size, and nobody uses Disney or Apple's litigiousness as proof that they are teetering on the brink of destruction. Eventually a company has reached a saturation point with its audience and they spend more time trying to keep their audience than gain a new one. If anything, Age of Sigmar is proof that they are looking for new customers rather than fighting the losing fight to keep their old ones.

TSR earned themselves the nickname T$R for trying to sue over the use of the term 'dragon'. GW over the use of fur and skulls on a model. That's the point I was trying to make.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

You don't sound very convinced, though. Or is it just me?

I honestly have no idea. I can only tell you what I have seen and that it is possible 80% of models do not get played.

Going a little further, I would not be surprised (I have no figures here) if 80% of Space Marines don't see a lick of paint...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Let me just make sure I understand what you're saying - You're saying you believe that 80% of the GW customers have never played/will never play a GW game?

You like absolutes, don't you?

No, I don't think he is saying that.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I wasn't around for the 3.5/4th fiasco but I have heard many a tale and was there for a little of the 5th ed playtesting and it's launch and I have to say I love it where 3.5/pathfinder just felt like a poorly constructed game to me and 4th had such a reputation that no one wanted to try it out with me.

4e was actually a very good release. People complained that it was too easy or held their hand way too much (all of the exact same complaints I'm hearing now about AoS). It just changed a lot of the core mechanics of the game making it all around better, IMHO. And, it was a HUGE jumping on point for people who had never played before because you could roll up a character and be playing in no time with all the gear you needed and the ability to heal yourself.

The fight over 3.5e and 4e just reminds me of the fight that is currently going on right now between 8th Edition and AoS. No, based on AoS rules, you won't be able to play the way you used to. You may not be able to play exactly the way you liked to. But, I think, given a chance, people would actually like it a lot more than they think they would.

So, all you AoS supporters out there, keep on preachin! Let's get the AoS hype train moving again!

SG

Okay, now we are on my turf

 jonolikespie wrote:
I legitimately tried to look for a list of companies that don't do market research

That will be most of them. Not just hobby games, but across the board.

Most companies are too small to instigate or benefit from any 'serious' market research. Most companies are just small.

Speaking from behind the scenes, the hobby games market has always had notorious issues with market research and, off the top of my head, I can only think of one that made any serious attempt (WotC, just before the release of 3.0 - they decided there were something like 2 million active D&D players in the US alone, so take that for what it was worth).

Now, most hobby games companies are tiny compared to GW, and things change with scale, sure. Are GW of the right size to start benefiting from market research? I really don't know (my company ain't that large), but I can understand where they are coming from on this.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I was going to try to find the exact quote when Kirby said the global recession didn't effect them but it is 2am here so I gave up. I will point out that every other company in the market is operating in the exact same economic circumstances as GW and that doesn't seem to have affected their sales whatsoever, in fact the Hobby itself seems to have seen massive growth in recent years

There is a line of wisdom in the hobby games industry, that may not be completely wrong, that says that hobby games are resilient to recession and may even benefit. The idea is that people would rather spend $50 on a game that could last them months than the same amount for a meal out or visit to the cinema. And there may well be truth in this.

The caveat is that if a recession continues, they get bitten just as much as everyone else. They are not immune.

 jonolikespie wrote:
(I believe ICV2 reported the 'hobby' market to have doubled in size in North America between 2008 and 2013 or so, but they cound card games and board games in that too).

Be careful with ICV2, their sources for this data can be indicative, but they are also extremely limited. I speak from experience on this one

The people with the real data are the distributors, primarily Alliance and ACD in the US, Esdevium in the UK. However, GW have their own channels that bypass these guys, and that has always muddied the waters.

Kirby said in the annual report about five years ago that GW was not affected by general economic conditions.

This was shortly before GW started a three year slide in sales, which Kirby attributed partly to bad general economic conditions.

Interestingly, general economic conditions have been improving for a couple of years.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Pogs. Beanie Babies. Garbage Pail Kids. Pez Dispensers. Baseball Cards. Military Hegemony?

Pogs was a game that led to a collection.

Beanie babies fell apart when the perceived "value" left the market.

Garbage Pail Kids cost what...50 cents a pack?

Pez Dispensers...again, a candy that costs a couple bucks at most.

Baseball cards, like stamps, is dead.

Military Hegemony...there we go. GW is most akin to collecting Nazi mementos.

You know on the recession issue it just occured to me that Australia is on of the worst markets for GW right now and started sliding long before the rest of the world. We never went into recession.

Take from that what you will.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
The best proof of Games Workshop being an arogant, snide and backwards company that loathes its consumers and doesn't give a crap about gaming is the release of Age of Sigmar

I think I've expressed my opinion on AoS enough in this thread, so I won't go into that any further. But, I will once again state that GW is not a gaming company nor will they claim to be... at least not at their core. They are a miniatures company. If writing some rules that allow you to play (only friendly, not tournament) games with their miniatures that will sell more of their miniatures, more power to them. If it brings in more money, then I don't see what it can hurt especially when the discrepancies in the rules and codices are supposed to be worked out amongst friends since it is a non-tournament, friendly game.

SG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know on the recession issue it just occured to me that Australia is on of the worst markets for GW right now and started sliding long before the rest of the world. We never went into recession.

Take from that what you will.

Aren't the prices of all GW products much higher in Australia than in the rest of the world? If so, that might explain why Australia is one of the worst GW markets.

SG

MongooseMatt wrote:


I honestly have no idea. I can only tell you what I have seen and that it is possible 80% of models do not get played.

Going a little further, I would not be surprised (I have no figures here) if 80% of Space Marines don't see a lick of paint...

(...)

You like absolutes, don't you?

No, I don't think he is saying that.

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.

I just dislike copping out and, with all due respect to Sarouan, that's what he's doing.

What do you think he's saying then, out of curiosity? Because whole "I'm not saying... but I'm saying" vibe in his post doesn't work for me.

And they do mean 80% of their customers, not 80% of their sales...

" In conversation, I’m told that the word “Game” in Games Workshop encourages the misconception that games are its business, but that only about 20% of Games Workshop’s customers are gamers. " Check away if necessary

 pox wrote:

So age of sigmar drops, and right off the bat my army is toast. What I mean is I played a clan morrs list, all warriors and slaves. no matter how you slice it, it's not a viable list for AoS. I do play, I bring either a fast moving eshin force, a skryre gunline, or a melee mix of rat ogres, stormvermin, and plague monks. (this gives me three "tiers" of armies.) so the game can be played, and I can bring hard lists or soft lists, but the bulk of my models are useless. (adding insult to injury all my units are on regimental bases and they don't make 20mm round bases.)

It is a different game. They extended an olive branch by making your old models work in the new game, but there's no way they could've made every model in every army as equally valid as they once were in a completely different gaming experience. I do understand your disappointment, but the transition wasn't going to be completely seamless, no matter how you looked at it.

Second, it was not all that well received. I have to call ahead to the shop to see if anyone is playing. I only have time about once a month, so aside from when it dropped and I was not working, I usually just play 40k.

I understand this as well. I have a difficult time finding other AoS players in my area as well. It's why I end up playing Warmachine every week instead of a game I like much better. I basically force my wife and friends to play, and while they like it well enough, they aren't into the hobby aspect. Showing up and playing someone else's army for a game or two isn't really the best way to experience the game. I enjoy it enough for the whole group though, and I look forward to getting my Overlord Bastion soon.

But I do think this will change over time. I think a lot of people expected AoS to be as popular as anything else out there within a few weeks of it dropping, but those games all took a long, long time to create a fanbase. Warmachine is 15 years old. Infinity is 10. Malifaux is just now getting steam, 6 or 7 years after release. Kings of War is enjoying a surge in popularity, and it's at least 6 years old as well. 40k is, I don't know, 30 or so? None of these games sprang out of Zeus's headache ready for battle. It took time to for fans to find them, understand them, and learn the best ways to enjoy them. Even after doing that, it took still more time to set up gaming groups and tournaments, websites, podcasts, and communities. I would say that a really exceptional game wouldn't hit that base level of support until three years, at a minimum, and that's an exceptional game.

I think Games Workshop is being held to a different standard, and I get that too. You'd think a lot of Fantasy players would create a built in audience, and the support in the form of online communities, market penetration, and ability to find groups can be piggybacked on the support structure already built by Games Workshop for their other games. And Age of Sigmar does benefit a LOT from that. There's more new AoS models, terrain, and novels than most mini games get in their first half decade, and I'm certain that there's plenty more where that came from. AoS also suffers a bit from that too, because the existing players are hesitant to change.

I think AoS will succeed quite strongly in small pockets, and those pockets will create the path forward for everyone else. I think that Games Workshop will continue to release models and books for the property, deepening the variety and quality over time, while slowly winning over players both old and new. I think GW will also provide additional rules. No necessarily an "Advanced Age of Sigmar" ruleset, but more like a bunch of smaller, optional rules that will fill in holes and appease concerns about the game. Ultimately, it is now that the initial buzz has worn off, and the initial heartbreak to WHFB players, that the game will begin building an audience in earnest. I think the December release window for AoS is going to be a turning point for a lot of people.

Third, the game is OK but I find that I have to always change stuff. even if I'm fine RAW my opponents usually aren't and want to try various scenarios/comps/builds. This means every encounter is vastly different, and sometimes I don't have whats needed. Again, I bring 2000 points of 40K and adjust to 1250, 1500, 500, etc.

This, I can't help you with. I believe this consternation will be alleviated as well, given time, but I couldn't begin to suggest how to deal with it right now.

Lastly, and this is the most important, AoS would need to outsell fantasy by a large margin or they will drop the game. I base this off the fact that I can't buy any specialist game. Originally this was due to shelf space but with so much direct only its obvious they don't want to support a game that does not sell well. They want a game that sells as much as 40K. I don't think they will keep re-launching fantasy, I think their thought will just be that a fantasy setting is not what the players want. I firmly believe that fantasy will go away within two years. Especially with the run-at-the-store that is about to happen with Horus Heresy.

Firstly, I think HH will only appeal to existing 40k players (I don't think people unversed in the 40k lore can even tell them apart), so GW would only be cannibalizing itself there. They won't grow an audience, though they may appease a particular existing segment that want something more balanced and complex. I admit that I love the look of 30k, but I doubt I would play it over 40k due to the cost and more niche nature.

Second, I don't think GW has ever supported their specialist games. Blood Bowl is the only one that I remember seeing any supplements for (I admit that I wasn't paying super close attention, but my comic book shop has carried GW stuff for a while). My guess is that there is a certain amount of manpower and time associated with supporting games for years and years, and they could support one game, like Blood Bowl, or they could continually create new games with those resources. I think keeping the specialist line as a bunch of one-and-done games isn't a terrible strategy, though I'm sure it is frustrating to have to buy a new version of Space Hulk every ten years.

I think them putting the golden statue of a Sigmarine in front of their headquarters was their promise to support AoS. I'd be surprised if they didn't have the next two or three years planned out, with hot pokers in the fire for beyond that. AoS only had a two or three month release window, used largely to launch the game and set up the new Stormcast army and lore. I think once they start returning to old races that have been drastically changed (such as the fyre slayers, rumored in early 2016), that we'll really start to see the level of support they intend to put into the game.

I mean, players have created this weird Catch-22 with Age of Sigmar in that they won't play it because they are afraid that GW will kill the game, but if GW kills the game, it's because there weren't enough players. I say, don't worry about all that. If you like the game, play it as often as you can. If you don't like the game, then don't play it. Things will work out one way or the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

And they do mean 80% of their customers, not 80% of their sales...

" In conversation, I’m told that the word “Game” in Games Workshop encourages the misconception that games are its business, but that only about 20% of Games Workshop’s customers are gamers. " Check away if necessary

That's a great link. Here's some quotes from the article:

Maybe you think you’re a customer, or a potential customer, because you like playing games. But this is the important bit. This is the bit written in every Games Workshop annual report. The company’s mission statement is “we make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them globally at a profit and we intend to do this forever.”

It does not mention games. In conversation, I’m told that the word “Game” in Games Workshop encourages the misconception that games are its business, but that only about 20% of Games Workshop’s customers are gamers. The rest are modellers and collectors. Maybe half of them think about playing now and then. The other half have no intention. People actually walk into the stores because they’re curious about modelling fantastic armies.

So of those 80% who aren't gamers, "Maybe half of them think about playing now and then". So the author is making the distinction between those who primarily game versus those who primarily hobby.

Hi Maynard. I'm not sure how precise the 20% figure is. It was bandied around in conversation rather than put on a powerpoint! That said, it's pretty obvious who Games Workshop is focused on.

(From the comments section) It should also be pointed out that, at least in this article, the author is paraphrasing.

Games are easy to sell if they catch on, but it’s the modelling aspect of Warhammer that makes it a hobby, sometimes for life, and peculiarly lucrative to Games Workshop.

Some perspective on the idea that they sell models, not games. They create life long customers through the hobby aspect, not through the game rules. And I think I agree with that. There are few games that I love enough to play for years on end, but the hobby aspect of miniatures I could see keeping me on board that long. I mean, I've own some of my Warmachine models for over a decade, and it was because I already had the models that I decided to start playing again (after I upgraded to Mk2 cards).

The company cannot divulge sales figures, its in a closed period and Age of Sigmar is only in its third month, but in terms of other metrics, downloads and Sigmar themed magazine sales, management seems more than satisfied. Anyway, it’s at pains to point out, Warhammer Age of Sigmar is a long-term investment.

I'm not sure whether this is saying that they are satisfied with AoS in general, or if they are satisfied with the financial information they can share (those "other metrics").

"It is a different game. They extended an olive branch by making your old models work in the new game, but there's no way they could've made every model in every army as equally valid as they once were in a completely different gaming experience. I do understand your disappointment, but the transition wasn't going to be completely seamless, no matter how you looked at it."

They shifted to larger units in 7th, and really ramped up the points and model count during end times, then discontinue the game and replace it with a skirmish game.

As you say, they have a 2-3 production cycle.

That doesn't mean its a new or different game, that means its a bait and switch.

I think after looking at everything I'm just gonna take a break. I'll pack everything up and organize it into sellable chunks. At some point either GW will put out a game that is for my "type," or something that needs a lot of resources will come along and I'll just sell it off.

I wonder what the market for a welded steel Ork Landa is? It's only 35 pounds. (weight, not currency.)

I'm keeping the bike though, It's a hit at bike nights and rallies.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Show me on the doll where Games Workshop touched you...

This exact statement got me my final warning elsewhere... ah, memories.

I must admit, I do think it weird that *any* company doesn't do market research, but as I have no experience or even theoretical qualifications in that regard I can't really comment.
But even for a miniatures company, a game and setting for those miniatures provides the hook for buying them. Stating they are a miniatures company simply means their focus is on the minis.
Mantic are an excellent example of the reverse. Games first, product second. That philosophy really shows, too.
Even in that thread regarding 'terrible minis or terrible rules', a lot of people were stating that they like GW minis but use them for other games to get the best of both worlds.

The parallels with Apple are actually fair too. They are ubiquitous, highly visible and rigorously enforce a public persona of producing a premium quality product.
Then you actually get hold of that product, and in some cases the O/S or user experience puts you off ever having anything to do with that logo again...
Although I'll be extremely interested to see where PP are on their hard styrene kits in 5 years' time - a lot of potential there given what they've been able to do with metal and that awful quasi-resin.

AoS isn't a "terrible" game because GW hate gamers, don't do market research or whatever.
It is a "terrible" game because it has been designed as a low-entry cost, entirely open-ended, infinitely expandable ruleset & universe that will support the release of anything the miniatures studio can come up with.

 pox wrote:
"It is a different game. They extended an olive branch by making your old models work in the new game, but there's no way they could've made every model in every army as equally valid as they once were in a completely different gaming experience. I do understand your disappointment, but the transition wasn't going to be completely seamless, no matter how you looked at it."

They shifted to larger units in 7th, and really ramped up the points and model count during end times, then discontinue the game and replace it with a skirmish game.

As you say, they have a 2-3 production cycle.

That doesn't mean its a new or different game, that means its a bait and switch.

This. A thousand times this. Have an Exalt.

Though I did have the stomach to shelve it. I shelved after 6th. I traded after AoS. They most likely will never get me back.

 Sqorgar wrote:
And the reason you don't bother looking it up is because it doesn't actually matter to you whether these statements are true or not.

Not quite. The reason I don't bother looking it up is because it doesn't actually matter to me whether you think these statement are true or not.

Well, I don't know if GW really has 80% of their customers more in the collection than the game, but I believe there is a significant part of them.

I must say that even if I don't play AoS right now (well, it's more of a lack of player), I find myself still wanting to collect the miniatures I like. Even if I don't "use them" and just put them on display on my shelf.

And I also must say than my collection of more than 100 sisters of battle models for 40k was not really meant to play them all at once. It's not like I got to play Apocalypse all week ends.

So yeah...the collection part? I totally can understand it.

Still, I like to play as well. But the reason why I keep buying miniatures from GW from time to time, well...it's not really for GW games alone, in fact. To me, at least.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
The best proof of Games Workshop being an arogant, snide and backwards company that loathes its consumers and doesn't give a crap about gaming is the release of Age of Sigmar

Show me on the doll where Games Workshop touched you...

Ok then. I've managed to dodge getting into any serious discussion in what is basicaly a huge bait thread for 15 pages. I dodged commenting on AoS optimist bashing people for directly answering OP claims. I dodged commenting on your little insults towards MWHistorian despite it being a great example of how this discussions work where critics comment on the game, optimists comment on critics. I dodged commenting on optimist attacking mods for "giving critics a pass" where I for example was banned each time I crossed the line for things that wouldn't even get me a warning on other forums I frequent. Ofc I am an agressive poster and deserved it here, in fact I appreciate attempts to keep this forum civil for a change vs internets, anyway it's a good example of bs claim from optimists that just begs for a reaction.

So, I dodged all those but you are something else, it's not just your boorish posts but the way you dodge actual arguments posting outragous claims like how most people negative towards AoS are minmaxing waac, or not well adjusted, cmon man stay classy. Not only it's cheap but an obvious fallacy and going personal usually means you already lost on proper arguments and for all the bad traits attributed to AoS critics, you don't see them sweeping AoS fans like that, hey even I don't and believe that should get you thinking.

Now, the doll. GW touched the area of my right pocket and not gently that's for sure. Fun fact is, you will not find a single post from me bashing their prices and you can find my posts about how they make the best plastics where I'm called fine GW fanboy. Their politics killed a shop I liked in my area, you won't find me commenting on that, it's crap ofc but bussiness is hard and all. Ofc I was always bashing their embrassingly bad rules writing and garbage rulesets but was still symphatetic towards the studio. When AoS hit, the way it was done, the beyond garbage rules, the arrogance, the lack of creativity, it didn't make me sad or angry, it made me laugh. You think them haters are sitting there foaming at the mouth and kicking the cat but this is me for example when discussing Age of Sigmar:

http://captiongenerator.com/48861/Age-of-Sigmar-interview

In fact I became thankful very fast because it exposed the company beyond any doubt and set me free from the nostalgia and any loyalty I had, I stopped buying 40k as well thanks to it. Fantasy, as someone else said, was spared the horror of Bloodsecrators and Murderheim so it's probably good that it's dead, not good for GW who dimnished the importance of their huge brand and will suffer for it but good for the setting itself. So no it's not sad minmaxing bigots suffering from bad touch, it's just a cringeworthy company that exposed itself and is now a laughing stock of the industry.

It depends what you mean by "collection". I certainly own a lot more figures and kits for various different games including 40K than I have ever finished painting. This is because I am a wargamer, and I know that I will only die when all my lead is painted. Many wargamers are like this.

However I've given up playing 40K because of the state of the rules, and I don't buy any models for it because I'm not going to play it. I'm also not going to play AoS because I haven't got any Fantasy models and I don't want to spend the money it would take to make even a small army.

I dunno what GW is smoking when they came up with the 20-80 split. Even if it was true, if you took the numbers of regular buyers rather than ones who drop off, the longer you examin that sample the more the numbers are going to level because playing the game is what keeps most players in the hobby.

And then if you took into account players that aspire to play the game, the numbers are gonna shift in the opposite direction. Even if it's likely they will never play a game because they are the only person who lives on a tiny Pacific island and have to get stuff airmailed, the idea that one day they could play a game is often enough to keep them buying and collecting.

It makes me really sad when I see GW changing what used to say "You're about to delve into the exciting world of battles in the distant future", to "You're about to delve into the exciting world of COLLECTING CITADEL MINIATURES". It misses the point in my opinion.

But wait, why are we talking about this in relation to the OP, haha?

Because the OP said that the criticisms of AOS are from misunderstandinds. And the counter argument is that the critics do understand it and still don't like it.
So why people dont like it is very much on topic.

I'm lost at how the "80-20 split" has any relation to this.

 Bottle wrote:
I'm lost at how the "80-20 split" has any relation to this.

One could argue that if GW think that the vast majority of their customers don't play their games anyway, that might explain AoS... It doesn't matter how good the game is, if it's just an excuse to buy miniatures and nobody's actually going to play it anyway...

Yep, I have fun with AoS but I see this attitude in their lack of gaming support on their website and in White Dwarf. They need to make the game the focal point again and I think lots will agree with that regardless if you like AoS or not.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I think AoS will succeed quite strongly in small pockets, and those pockets will create the path forward for everyone else. I think that Games Workshop will continue to release models and books for the property, deepening the variety and quality over time, while slowly winning over players both old and new. I think GW will also provide additional rules. No necessarily an "Advanced Age of Sigmar" ruleset, but more like a bunch of smaller, optional rules that will fill in holes and appease concerns about the game. Ultimately, it is now that the initial buzz has worn off, and the initial heartbreak to WHFB players, that the game will begin building an audience in earnest. I think the December release window for AoS is going to be a turning point for a lot of people.

The last time GW released new rules to fix problems or concerns with a game like that would have been probably 2002? They fixed the Assault phase for 40k and gave terminators invun saves back in the day. These days they charge people for things like Escelation and Stronghold Assault which where NOT what fans were asking for and they seem to have entirely stopped doing FAQs again. They have given no indication they will do this, it's wishful thinking.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Second, I don't think GW has ever supported their specialist games. Blood Bowl is the only one that I remember seeing any supplements for (I admit that I wasn't paying super close attention, but my comic book shop has carried GW stuff for a while). My guess is that there is a certain amount of manpower and time associated with supporting games for years and years, and they could support one game, like Blood Bowl, or they could continually create new games with those resources. I think keeping the specialist line as a bunch of one-and-done games isn't a terrible strategy, though I'm sure it is frustrating to have to buy a new version of Space Hulk every ten years.

You are wrong. GW did support their specialist games quite well. If I go through my roommate's bookshelf I'll find plenty of articles about them, as well as lots of new releases. Inquisitor had it's own shelf in GW stores with the whole line on offer once upon a time. Epic 40k for Emperor's sake was their 3rd core game before LotR. The support stopped one day and that is why specialist games slowly died.