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.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sigh. Did you even read what you wrote? You said that adding ANY content to a game is a good thing, because if you don't like it you can always just remove it. So by your own argument adding 40,000 pages of basic tactical marines that cost 10,000 points per model would be improving the game.

It'd certainly be an improvement to the variety of tactical marines, yes. Remember, I'm not arguing from my own point of view. Someone somewhere out there would love 40,000 pages of tactical marines. If they cost 10,000 per model they wouldn't see much play, but the game hasn't suffered from their existence. I'm going to repeat this once more than ignore you entirely on this subject -- it is your opinion that such hypothetical additions do not improve the game. Like all opinions, someone will disagree with you so it's not our place to judge what is a Right or Wrong addition, only to offer our own opinion. Take solace that we share one as I, in my entirely personal opinion, wouldn't like having so many pages of marines!

 Peregrine wrote:
You seriously think that one veteran per horde of newbies can keep a game going? What happens when that veteran moves away?

Zero and One are different numbers. You're no longer arguing the same point.

 Peregrine wrote:
Lol? You used WoW as an example to support your claims, and WoW uses the same business model as EVE. So if EVE is irrelevant then so is your own attempt to "prove" your claims.

WoW doesn't use a real-time XP system that limits the ability of players to buy their way into power. The impact of this decision on the community is what makes EVE so popular, though not unique as it's done in other sandbox games. Additionally, the persistent world of alliance war means you can lose the Time you put into building up your forces in EVE. In WoW, you hit the respawn button and try again. LOL if you actually think they're the same.

 Peregrine wrote:
What's your point? Being a veteran of a game involves more than just your character stats. People don't wake up on patch day and discover that the company broke up their guild and banned everyone from talking to each other, or put someone else in charge and banned the former leader from organizing community activities.

The rest of the section you didn't quote describes my point. Your claim was that failing to cater to veterans would lead to a lack of soon-to-be-addicts and I debunked this. You can certainly thrive on games designed to reset the system and cater to newbies and casuals. Veteranship in terms of community exists in MMOs the same way it exists in 40k and neither do what you claim to destroy the communities, yet what does that have to do with not needing to cater to veterans to support the model? Nothing, that's what, you're putting forth a red herring when it's unrelated to the point you're disputing.

 Peregrine wrote:
No. GW IS FAILING AS A BUSINESS. They're losing sales volume, they're losing market share, profit is stagnant, and they're forced to borrow money to pay dividends to their investors. Meanwhile the rest of their industry is growing, thanks in large part to GW self destructing. GW only exists as a profitable company right now because they started from such a dominant position and it takes time for a company like that to fail. A smaller company that copied GW's failures would be dead by now.

And yet they haven't died yet. Star Wars Galaxies died, Legend of the Five Rings died, VS System just came back for round two, lots of games and companies fail yet GW apparently has the IWND special rule. Expecting this to lead to their own destruction is merely a doom prophecy, like the claims the world would end in 2012. Until it happens, it's merely a trend and they can still turn it around, not necessarily by doing what you want them to.

 Arkaine wrote:
It'd certainly be an improvement to the variety of tactical marines, yes. Remember, I'm not arguing from my own point of view. Someone somewhere out there would love 40,000 pages of tactical marines. If they cost 10,000 per model they wouldn't see much play, but the game hasn't suffered from their existence. I'm going to repeat this once more than ignore you entirely on this subject -- it is your opinion that such hypothetical additions do not improve the game. Like all opinions, someone will disagree with you so it's not our place to judge what is a Right or Wrong addition, only to offer our own opinion. Take solace that we share one as I, in my entirely personal opinion, wouldn't like having so many pages of marines!

Sorry, this is just getting absurd. If you seriously think that the value of adding 40,000 pages of content that nobody is ever going to use is just a matter of "subjective opinion" then I don't really know what to say. You're so hopelessly wrong that I don't think any discussion of the subject is possible.

Zero and One are different numbers. You're no longer arguing the same point.

...

This is not hard to understand. If you have a single veteran anchoring a community then you're in an incredibly vulnerable position because it's very easy to go from one veteran to zero. Therefore it's in the best interest of the game company to have more than one veteran, even if only to ensure that the loss of one doesn't kill the community before someone can replace them.

WoW doesn't use a real-time XP system that limits the ability of players to buy their way into power. The impact of this decision on the community is what makes EVE so popular, though not unique as it's done in other sandbox games. Additionally, the persistent world of alliance war means you can lose the Time you put into building up your forces in EVE. In WoW, you hit the respawn button and try again. LOL if you actually think they're the same.

Game mechanics =/= business model. Both games exist on a business model of providing an online game for $15/month, with a side bonus of cash shop items (character transfers, etc). Please stop trying to move the goalposts.

The rest of the section you didn't quote describes my point. Your claim was that failing to cater to veterans would lead to a lack of soon-to-be-addicts and I debunked this. You can certainly thrive on games designed to reset the system and cater to newbies and casuals. Veteranship in terms of community exists in MMOs the same way it exists in 40k and neither do what you claim to destroy the communities, yet what does that have to do with not needing to cater to veterans to support the model? Nothing, that's what, you're putting forth a red herring when it's unrelated to the point you're disputing.

Did you even read what I wrote? What it has to do with needing to cater to veterans to support the business model is that the game caters to veterans. You claimed that there's a reset button that removes everything veterans try to build, I pointed out that this is not the case.

And yet they haven't died yet. Star Wars Galaxies died, Legend of the Five Rings died, VS System just came back for round two, lots of games and companies fail yet GW apparently has the IWND special rule. Expecting this to lead to their own destruction is merely a doom prophecy, like the claims the world would end in 2012. Until it happens, it's merely a trend and they can still turn it around, not necessarily by doing what you want them to.

Sorry, but this is just laughably wrong. We don't have to wait until GW actually files the bankruptcy paperwork to say that their business model is not working and all of the trends are pointing in the wrong direction. Trying to equate this to end of the world prophecies is just plain ignorant of the realities of GW's financial state.

 Peregrine wrote:
Game mechanics =/= business model. Both games exist on a business model of providing an online game for $15/month, with a side bonus of cash shop items (character transfers, etc). Please stop trying to move the goalposts.

Ah, so you're only arguing semantics and word choice now. Gotcha. I stated that in EVE character progression is Time-based and associated it with the business model, in doing so I am discussing mechanics as they pertain to the company's income. The importance of veterans in driving a game's success was the point of contention and remains so because despite the "business models" you called out appearing identical, they are actually not. The price per month is not a business model, that's a revenue stream. EVE developers aim at the goal of hooking players long term using mechanics that encourage loyalty while releasing free expansions. That is their business model, long term community-driven funding by a devoted niche fanbase. WoW aims less at month to month gains with PAID expansions by stretching out repeating content just enough to be bearable and mixing up balance every few months, along with a dedicated minority of subscribed hardcore raiders and fanatic PVPers to tide over between releases. Many players actually quit a few months into any expansion but return to WoW each new large update or expansion out of sheer content addiction, that is their business model and it's similar to the EverQuest one, centered around selling box content expansions periodically with a DECAYING interim stream of revenue and the subsequent shockpaddle revival of a dying community with a new release coupled with the return of long gone addicts looking for another taste of the latest Mega Dungeon Ride. EVE's revenue stream is a non-decaying type, meant to hook players for life with no pause. They accomplish this by allowing XP training even while you are not playing the game or taking a break AS LONG AS YOU REMAIN SUBSCRIBED!

Fyi, check the definition of a business model next time.

(A business model is an "abstract representation of an organization, be it conceptual, textual, and/or graphical, of all core interrelated architectural, co-operational, and financial arrangements designed and developed by an organization presently and in the future, as well as all core products and/or services the organization offers, or will offer, based on these arrangements that are needed to achieve its strategic goals and objectives.")
Alternate: (The plan implemented by a company to generate revenue and make a profit from operations. The model includes the components and functions of the business, as well as the revenues it generates and the expenses it incurs.)

 Peregrine wrote:
Did you even read what I wrote? What it has to do with needing to cater to veterans to support the business model is that the game caters to veterans. You claimed that there's a reset button that removes everything veterans try to build, I pointed out that this is not the case.

Actually no, it doesn't and no you didn't. You mentioned community and I presume how it is not reset or destroyed yet in no way does that correspond to the game catering to veterans. That's like arguing that because I see the same guy at Dunkin Donuts every morning, the corporation that owns Dunkin Donuts is catering to community building. GW doesn't even host its own tournies or provide us with better official formats and rules, contradicting itself illogically with updates and leaving us to sort of which matters and which doesn't. WoW does not cater to community development either with its increasing ease of solo play, ability to farm for end game gear without joining a guild through the token system, cross-world dungeon queue systems, and other business decisions that - for the record - are blasted on its forums for actually DESTROYING the community. How's that for a reset button?

 Peregrine wrote:
Sorry, but this is just laughably wrong. We don't have to wait until GW actually files the bankruptcy paperwork to say that their business model is not working and all of the trends are pointing in the wrong direction. Trying to equate this to end of the world prophecies is just plain ignorant of the realities of GW's financial state.

Whatever you say, Nicodemus. Don't drop your tin foil hat on the way out of the thread.

 Arkaine wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Sorry, but this is just laughably wrong. We don't have to wait until GW actually files the bankruptcy paperwork to say that their business model is not working and all of the trends are pointing in the wrong direction. Trying to equate this to end of the world prophecies is just plain ignorant of the realities of GW's financial state.

Whatever you say, Nicodemus. Don't drop your tin foil hat on the way out of the thread.

Adjusting for inflation, GW is making less profits every year while the market grows around them. Denying that they are losing the market is like trying to deny the Titanic is sinking because the water is only waist high.

 the Signless wrote:
Adjusting for inflation, GW is making less profits every year while the market grows around them. Denying that they are losing the market is like trying to deny the Titanic is sinking because the water is only waist high.

You might want to read the post prior to that. I did not deny they are losing the market, I specifically said there's time to turn it around. The ball is GW's court to adjust to the fluctuating needs of its consumers, yet that doesn't make our resident Doomsayer correct in his forecast.

 Arkaine wrote:
You might want to read the post prior to that. I did not deny they are losing the market, I specifically said there's time to turn it around. The ball is GW's court to adjust to the fluctuating needs of its consumers, yet that doesn't make our resident Doomsayer correct in his forecast.

Lol, really? Your best counter-argument to the claim that GW is dying is that GW is dying, but if they stop doing what they're doing they could avoid dying? Seriously?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
You might want to read the post prior to that. I did not deny they are losing the market, I specifically said there's time to turn it around. The ball is GW's court to adjust to the fluctuating needs of its consumers, yet that doesn't make our resident Doomsayer correct in his forecast.

Lol, really? Your best counter-argument to the claim that GW is dying is that GW is dying, but if they stop doing what they're doing they could avoid dying? Seriously?

LOL no, my counter argument was Economics 101 - Businesses have Trends, both upward and downward. Trends =/= Death Sentences. Keep up the doom and gloom though, Halloween's tonight and we need more of it decorating the forum!

 Arkaine wrote:
LOL no, my counter argument was Economics 101 - Businesses have Trends, both upward and downward. Trends =/= Death Sentences. Keep up the doom and gloom though, Halloween's tonight and we need more of it decorating the forum!

And you know what happens if a downward trend continues too long? THE COMPANY DIES. Seriously, "GW could change everything" is not a counter-argument to the fact that GW is in serious trouble. If GW needs to change to avoid death then you've just conceded my point that GW's business model is not working, because if GW had a working business model then they wouldn't be in their current financial situation.

PS: your optimism about GW reversing their downward trend is pretty hilarious given that GW is showing no signs of acting to reverse the trend, doesn't appear to realize that they have problems, and brags to their investors about the things that any sensible observer should be horrified by.

 Peregrine wrote:
And you know what happens if a downward trend continues too long? THE COMPANY DIES.

Yep! I'm so glad you're our official PSYCHIC and know the outcome. This will be what... the fourth time GW has died? At least it is if you look at the community reactions to past editions. How many of them did you predict exactly? I'm guessing three.

 Arkaine wrote:
Yep! I'm so glad you're our official PSYCHIC and know the outcome. This will be what... the fourth time GW has died? At least it is if you look at the community reactions to past editions. How many of them did you predict exactly? I'm guessing three.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you even know? This has nothing to do with "OMG THE NEW EDITION IS GOING TO KILL GW" and everything to do with GW's own financial information combined with bad business decisions that have been going on for longer than a single edition of 40k.

And, in case you forgot, the whole "GW is dying" thing came up because you tried to make an argument that GW is making a bunch of money therefore the people who are complaining must be wrong. Even if GW doesn't actually die as a result the fact that they're in serious financial trouble right now rather conclusively disproves your idea that GW is running their business the right way.

 Peregrine wrote:
PS: your optimism about GW reversing their downward trend is pretty hilarious given that GW is showing no signs of acting to reverse the trend, doesn't appear to realize that they have problems, and brags to their investors about the things that any sensible observer should be horrified by.

Oh this has nothing to do with optimism. Remember what this was originally all about? You claiming that the way described is a stupid way to run a business and putting forth HYWPI, as though you know anything about running a corporation or generating millions of dollars in revenue. Yet it's quite the successful model followed by many companies, GW included. You're truly in no place to ascertain whether their business practices are making them less money than the ones you feel they should be following. Keep thinking otherwise though, oh wise wizard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
And, in case you forgot, the whole "GW is dying" thing came up because you tried to make an argument that GW is making a bunch of money therefore the people who are complaining must be wrong. Even if GW doesn't actually die as a result the fact that they're in serious financial trouble right now rather conclusively disproves your idea that GW is running their business the right way.

No, it came up because you tried to declare you know how to run a company better than them. Totally not buying that load. Here it is in case you forgot:

VVV

 Peregrine wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
Games Workshop even believes in the value of new blood based on how their employees are trained to offer substantial assistance to beginners looking to buy models then forgetting about them or any other veterans shortly after. They're in the model selling business, after all. No need to focus on your cultists, only on preaching to gospel to new ones.

And this attitude is arguably one of the reasons why GW is in serious financial trouble. They're so obsessed with meeting today's sales quotas that they're willing to throw away the established veterans that are their biggest source of advertising. This is a really stupid way to run a company.

 Arkaine wrote:
You claiming that the way described is a stupid way to run a business and putting forth HYWPI, as though you know anything about running a corporation or generating millions of dollars in revenue.

I don't need to know how to run a corporation to know that GW is not doing a good job of running a corporation. I just need to be able to read financial reports. I can see that GW has raised prices, aggressively cut costs (even to the point of reducing the quality of their products), and vastly accelerated their release schedule. I can see that despite doing these things which should lead to growth GW's revenue and profits are both stagnant or even declining. And I can see that the industry as a whole is doing just fine, so GW can't blame their failures on overall market trends.

Yet it's quite the successful model followed by many companies, GW included.

Really? How many successful companies brag to their investors about how they refuse to do market research?

PS: GW is not a successful company.

You're truly in no place to ascertain whether their business practices are making them less money than the ones you feel they should be following.

You're right, I can't conclusively say that my ideas would work better. But it would be very hard to do worse than what GW is currently doing, so the odds are in my favor. And whether or not my ideas are the right ones it's indisputably true that GW's current ideas aren't.

 Arkaine wrote:

 the Signless wrote:
Adjusting for inflation, GW is making less profits every year while the market grows around them. Denying that they are losing the market is like trying to deny the Titanic is sinking because the water is only waist high.

You might want to read the post prior to that. I did not deny they are losing the market, I specifically said there's time to turn it around. The ball is GW's court to adjust to the fluctuating needs of its consumers, yet that doesn't make our resident Doomsayer correct in his forecast.

Agreed, there is time to turn it around. There's been time for a while now, and will be time for a while. The ball has been in GW's court for a while now. That doesn't make our resident doomsayer wrong, either.

 Arkaine wrote:

 the Signless wrote:
Adjusting for inflation, GW is making less profits every year while the market grows around them. Denying that they are losing the market is like trying to deny the Titanic is sinking because the water is only waist high.

You might want to read the post prior to that. I did not deny they are losing the market, I specifically said there's time to turn it around. The ball is GW's court to adjust to the fluctuating needs of its consumers, yet that doesn't make our resident Doomsayer correct in his forecast.

While true, they do have time to turn it around, they've also wasted a lot of time, this is not a recent thing for GW, it's been a pretty constant trend for over a decade now and they've regressed nearly twenty years in terms of Real revenue, they haven't been as small as they are since 40k was in its 2nd edition.

More to the point, they keep consistently seeming to miss, or willingly refuse, to respond to their customerbase. There's been a clamor for CSM Legion books/rules/etc for 8 years now. It would be a license to print money for them. What do they do instead? Come out with a Black Legion supplement (when the basic CSM book is *already* effectively a Black Legion book) that largely just offers a single FoC swap with Abaddon, a new "renegade" faction nobody asked for, and the KDK book which, while not terrible in concept, wasn't really what anyone was looking for either. Forgeworld does their HH thing that caters to that desire, and suddenly that explodes and GW is apparently blindsided by this.

So yes, while GW has time to adjust and isn't going to go belly-up next week, between their long term track record and recent actions, it really doesn't seem like they're getting the point, and there's not a whole lot of hope that anything is going to change any time soon.

The question is whether GW will continue to go down and collapse or if they level out to a much lower and stable level.
I can't predict that, but either case isn't good for GW.

 MWHistorian wrote:
The question is whether GW will continue to go down and collapse or if they level out to a much lower and stable level.
I can't predict that, but either case isn't good for GW.

It's an interesting question, to be sure. They've done well with their cost cutting measures, but how much revenue can they lose before the cost cutting measures no longer cut it?

 Torga_DW wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
The question is whether GW will continue to go down and collapse or if they level out to a much lower and stable level.
I can't predict that, but either case isn't good for GW.

It's an interesting question, to be sure. They've done well with their cost cutting measures, but how much revenue can they lose before the cost cutting measures no longer cut it?

I have no idea, but either way GW won't last as the market leader. Unless they drastically change what they do. And I don't see that happening.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
The question is whether GW will continue to go down and collapse or if they level out to a much lower and stable level.
I can't predict that, but either case isn't good for GW.

It's an interesting question, to be sure. They've done well with their cost cutting measures, but how much revenue can they lose before the cost cutting measures no longer cut it?

I have no idea, but either way GW won't last as the market leader. Unless they drastically change what they do. And I don't see that happening.

Do you really think GW will loose market leadership anytime soon?
I guess not. AoS was a short time opportunity to sell more fantasy models than normal. The same holds for HH.

 Torga_DW wrote:
It's an interesting question, to be sure. They've done well with their cost cutting measures, but how much revenue can they lose before the cost cutting measures no longer cut it?

Or before the consequences of their cost cutting start to be felt. For example, their one-man stores are a joke in the US. They're barely open, they're usually in random strip malls in the middle of nowhere to keep rent prices down, they have virtually no gaming space, and service quality suffers from the fact that there's only one person in the store. A half-decent independent store provides a much better experience, along with a full range of products instead of just GW stuff. So yeah, GW has cut the cost of that one-man store, but only by bringing its quality down to a point where nobody wants to go there. And eventually the money they saved by cutting store quality will be offset by the sales lost as a result.

It depends on what you call the market, i think. I've always heard that historicals had larger playerbases than the relatively new fantasy/sci-fi ttmg market. Take that as you will.

edit: i really need to quote people more.... but i wont, i'm just lazy like that.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Do you really think GW will loose market leadership anytime soon?
I guess not. AoS was a short time opportunity to sell more fantasy models than normal. The same holds for HH.

It could happen faster than you might think. GW is quickly becoming a single-product company with the end of the LOTR license and the utter failure of AoS. 40k is their only real product line, and all it takes is an AoS-style shift to an alternate system to cripple GW. And a lot of 40k players are only continuing to play (and buy!) because it's the only option for a large-scale scifi game. But how long will that be true? If, say, Infinity releases an expansion that adds tanks/aircraft/etc and increases the model count to 40k levels will people continue to buy 40k?

Now, this isn't going to happen overnight because there's no real competition for 40k yet. But GW could go from market leader to bankruptcy in a very short time if a serious threat ever appears.

 Peregrine wrote:
I don't need to know how to run a corporation to know that GW is not doing a good job of running a corporation.

Even WoW, EVE, or Magic won't last forever and this game's been around since 1987; D&D is even older and their company (WotC) is losing veterans as well, making up some of it with new blood, new editions, a new way to play (online tabletop), and completely new rules that barely resemble past editions. You won't see any downward trend though because it's the same company that owns Magic the Gathering. All of these companies made billions but all things eventually die. Smart business plan or no. It's a game, a popular one, but still just a game. People get bored of a game and move on to new shinier ones to continue feeding the addiction.

GW could be the best company or the worst company and there would still come a day when they stopped being a company. You know, unless they invent a new highly addictive product line... or they could just whore out the IP to board and video game developers like they're currently doing (Nov 14th for Horus Hersey; Eternal Crusade now in Closed Alpha). GW definitely doesn't do everything perfect but there are worse companies with more success. You should see the reports EA, Ubisoft, or Activision put out along with how poorly they treat their customers, how inferior their products are, how horrible their support lines can be, yet at the end of the day -- stupid amounts of money. Not by catering to veterans either, those they piss off royally and frequently make enemies of. Just by putting out the same old garbage rehashed different ways because *NEW* and *SHINY* things appeal to people.

Like Lucas did with Star Wars, they're pushing the brand. What they could use now is Space Marines the movie. Currently all we have is Imperial Guard vs Tyranids with Starship Troopers.

Warhammer the Card Game!
Warhammer the MMO!
Warhammer the Phone App!
Warhammer the RPG!
Warhammer the TBS!
Warhammer the RTS!
Warhammer the Board Game!
Warhammer the T-Shirt!
(All of these already exist; in multiples too)

 Peregrine wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Do you really think GW will loose market leadership anytime soon?
I guess not. AoS was a short time opportunity to sell more fantasy models than normal. The same holds for HH.

It could happen faster than you might think. GW is quickly becoming a single-product company with the end of the LOTR license and the utter failure of AoS. 40k is their only real product line, and all it takes is an AoS-style shift to an alternate system to cripple GW. And a lot of 40k players are only continuing to play (and buy!) because it's the only option for a large-scale scifi game. But how long will that be true? If, say, Infinity releases an expansion that adds tanks/aircraft/etc and increases the model count to 40k levels will people continue to buy 40k?

Now, this isn't going to happen overnight because there's no real competition for 40k yet. But GW could go from market leader to bankruptcy in a very short time if a serious threat ever appears.

It's about putting all your eggs in one basket, isn't it? GW is slowly but surely putting everything into 40k. It only takes a big hiccup to lose their business, which will amount to one thing. I'm speaking as to the company that is, and not the individual responsible for this course (who will retire a very happy man).

 Torga_DW wrote:
It's about putting all your eggs in one basket, isn't it? GW is slowly but surely putting everything into 40k. It only takes a big hiccup to lose their business, which will amount to one thing. I'm speaking as to the company that is, and not the individual responsible for this course (who will retire a very happy man).

They may actually be building the brand up to sell. Wouldn't that be the best!? Selling the whole IP or company to a bigger, better, smarter company.

I call dibs on Disney.

 Torga_DW wrote:
It's about putting all your eggs in one basket, isn't it? GW is slowly but surely putting everything into 40k. It only takes a big hiccup to lose their business, which will amount to one thing. I'm speaking as to the company that is, and not the individual responsible for this course (who will retire a very happy man).

Exactly. If one of FFG's games dies it's probably a big loss, but the company still has other product lines and will probably survive. If GW's only game dies then that's it for GW as a company.

 Arkaine wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
It's about putting all your eggs in one basket, isn't it? GW is slowly but surely putting everything into 40k. It only takes a big hiccup to lose their business, which will amount to one thing. I'm speaking as to the company that is, and not the individual responsible for this course (who will retire a very happy man).

They may actually be building the brand up to sell. Wouldn't that be the best!? Selling the whole IP or company to a bigger, better, smarter company.

I call dibs on Disney.

Yeah, in theory land. The whole IP being 40k, though. The question i always ask but never get a solid answer to is: who exactly is going to buy gw? The closest to an answer i've ever gotten is maybe hasbro. Why? What makes 40k a valuable (in any sense of the word) IP that 'someone' is going to 'snap up'?

 Arkaine wrote:
\]Even WoW, EVE, or Magic won't last forever and this game's been around since 1987; D&D is even older and their company (WotC) is losing veterans as well, making up some of it with new blood, new editions, a new way to play (online tabletop), and completely new rules that barely resemble past editions. You won't see any downward trend though because it's the same company that owns Magic the Gathering. All of these companies made billions but all things eventually die. Smart business plan or no. It's a game, a popular one, but still just a game. People get bored of a game and move on to new shinier ones to continue feeding the addiction.

You're confusing "will inevitably die" with "will inevitably die in the foreseeable future". Obviously every game will die eventually because nothing survives the heat death of the universe. But there's no reason to believe that 40k's problems are some kind of inevitable life cycle of a game and not poor decisions made by GW. If 40k is failing it's because it's a bad game.

You should see the reports EA, Ubisoft, or Activision put out along with how poorly they treat their customers, how inferior their products are, how horrible their support lines can be, yet at the end of the day -- stupid amounts of money.

Yeah, but see that key difference there? Those companies are making stupid amounts of money. GW is barely avoiding bankruptcy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Torga_DW wrote:
Why? What makes 40k a valuable (in any sense of the word) IP that 'someone' is going to 'snap up'?

Established fluff, a whole product line ready to go, and customers that are already buying it. It might not be the most valuable IP in the world but it's clearly one that can make a profit in the right hands with very little work. Even a small amount of guaranteed profit is still more than zero. Of course this is assuming that GW sells before they finish running the game into the ground. If GW succeeds in killing 40k and diminishing that value then it's going to be a lot harder to find a buyer.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
\]Even WoW, EVE, or Magic won't last forever and this game's been around since 1987; D&D is even older and their company (WotC) is losing veterans as well, making up some of it with new blood, new editions, a new way to play (online tabletop), and completely new rules that barely resemble past editions. You won't see any downward trend though because it's the same company that owns Magic the Gathering. All of these companies made billions but all things eventually die. Smart business plan or no. It's a game, a popular one, but still just a game. People get bored of a game and move on to new shinier ones to continue feeding the addiction.

You're confusing "will inevitably die" with "will inevitably die in the foreseeable future". Obviously every game will die eventually because nothing survives the heat death of the universe. But there's no reason to believe that 40k's problems are some kind of inevitable life cycle of a game and not poor decisions made by GW. If 40k is failing it's because it's a bad game.

Agreed.

 Peregrine wrote:

You should see the reports EA, Ubisoft, or Activision put out along with how poorly they treat their customers, how inferior their products are, how horrible their support lines can be, yet at the end of the day -- stupid amounts of money.

Yeah, but see that key difference there? Those companies are making stupid amounts of money. GW is barely avoiding bankruptcy.

EA got twice voted worst company in america. They've been having problems too. Mind you, they operate their business in a different way (eg they don't run their own stores).

 Peregrine wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
Why? What makes 40k a valuable (in any sense of the word) IP that 'someone' is going to 'snap up'?

Established fluff, a whole product line ready to go, and customers that are already buying it. It might not be the most valuable IP in the world but it's clearly one that can make a profit in the right hands with very little work. Even a small amount of guaranteed profit is still more than zero. Of course this is assuming that GW sells before they finish running the game into the ground. If GW succeeds in killing 40k and diminishing that value then it's going to be a lot harder to find a buyer.

So basically, it's established. That's what it has going for it. Still doesn't answer the question of who? though.

 Peregrine wrote:
You're confusing "will inevitably die" with "will inevitably die in the foreseeable future". Obviously every game will die eventually because nothing survives the heat death of the universe. But there's no reason to believe that 40k's problems are some kind of inevitable life cycle of a game and not poor decisions made by GW. If 40k is failing it's because it's a bad game.

Why not? D&D started failing some time after 2nd edition arrived and they ending up selling the company to Wizards. Nothing really spectacular has been done with it since, yet the IP remains alive through rapid release schedules that saturate the market with product for its addicts to buy. Not just the single box of the new Space Marine gizmo you buy once every year or two. They've been releasing new stuff rapidly, might be the beginning of a similar model.

 Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, but see that key difference there? Those companies are making stupid amounts of money. GW is barely avoiding bankruptcy.

Between those and WotC, they're making money by diversifying and spamming new products. GW has only the one product. Of course it gets hit the hardest. Either it'll all end when someone holding up the line retires or it'll go the way of TSR and get sold to a bigger company that will continue the brand with accelerated release schedules. In both cases, I think all those things we want and would pay for would begin to actually arrive. It's not over yet!

 Arkaine wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
You're confusing "will inevitably die" with "will inevitably die in the foreseeable future". Obviously every game will die eventually because nothing survives the heat death of the universe. But there's no reason to believe that 40k's problems are some kind of inevitable life cycle of a game and not poor decisions made by GW. If 40k is failing it's because it's a bad game.

Why not? D&D started failing some time after 2nd edition arrived and they ending up selling the company to Wizards. Nothing really spectacular has been done with it since, yet the IP remains alive through rapid release schedules that saturate the market with product for its addicts to buy. Not just the single box of the new Space Marine gizmo you buy once every year or two. They've been releasing new stuff rapidly, might be the beginning of a similar model.

The fall of tsr is an interesting one, and the whole rapid release schedule was a key indicator (in hindsight) of it's collapse. Adopting a similar model might be good for the next company to acquire the 40k license, but it doesn't do much good for the current company.

 Arkaine wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Yeah, but see that key difference there? Those companies are making stupid amounts of money. GW is barely avoiding bankruptcy.

Between those and WotC, they're making money by diversifying and spamming new products. GW has only the one product. Of course it gets hit the hardest. Either it'll all end when someone holding up the line retires or it'll go the way of TSR and get sold to a bigger company that will continue the brand with accelerated release schedules. In both cases, I think all those things we want and would pay for would begin to actually arrive. It's not over yet!

Again, who exactly is going to buy gw?