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.
Talys wrote: However, you can walk into any gaming store, and just ask them how WHFB did in the last couple of years, and I doubt you'll hear a store owner tell you that it was awesome.
Depends on the store though. And let's be fair - 'wfb wasn't doing well, so scrap it for aos' is a very simplistic reading of the situation. There are a lot of reasons why people turned their backs on fantasy, or never jumped on board. Gw's management of the game was a big reason.
@Skink - You sad regarding the chapterhouse case: "$647k sales from 7th edition WHFB and $1,645k from 5th edition 40k." Is that $647,000 USD versus $1,645,000 USD? What does that even mean? That can't be 40k's North American sales. I mean, that number is just way too small; it would peg North America at less than 1% of GW's annual sales during 5e...
@MWHistorian & RiTides - I think it's a perfectly fine theory that 8e hurt the WHFB community and WHFB sales, although there could have also been other contributing reasons that people left WHFB, such as other games. But you need to act in the present and you can't rewrite the past. If GW went back to 7e-esque rules, would it help? The damage is done, so to speak, right? Rather than try to win back some of the people who left (this is a difficult task), GW opted to try to win some people who would never have considered WHFB at all.
Going back to seventh, or earlier rules would be a start, maybe. Going back to 7th or earlier price points would be a bigger step. The rot didn't set in with 8th, 8th was just when the trickle became a flood,
Now, rather than aiming at a new audience rather trying to win back some of the people who had left, well, that's fair enough. But not only did they not even try to win back those who left, they properly turned on them, and rather than having disinterested former customers, they created a very alienated, angry and extremely hostile group of people who are not afraid to be vocal about it. Add In all the negative backlash from those same former customers and Now, in a word of mouth based hobby, you have a very negative word of mouth, and you have no existing playerbase that new players can latch onto (because you've blown up their world, and actively said theyre not welcome anyway), feed off of, and integrate with.
As for people turning to other games, the big reason for the initial huge (or even explosive) growth of games like warmachine after its mk2 release (specifically 2011-2013)was because people were driven from gw games in droves by appalling game direction and shocking price increases. I love warmachine, but it, and games like malifaux, infinity etc would never have reached its level of popularity had gw not mismanaged their primacy in the hobby to the extent that they did and created a disenfranchised pool of players who were frankly looking for something better. 40k was (and is) the big game in this industry. For decades, fantasy was number 2. For those decades, if you didn't play, or want to play 40k, you played fantasy. It was a self sustaining Eco system that other wargames simply didn't have and could only look on at with envy. But in the last five years, gw had really haemorrhaged customers with their corporate direction and game design and pricing policy. It was those disenfranchised players that pp, wyrd, cb and all the other companies picked up on, and those gw refugees for the large part ended up becoming the thriving self sustaining ecosystem those other games needed to thrive, and then began shouting their merits and and drawing in new players thst would previously have automatically been drawn to gw. Win win for those smaller companies. Lose lose for gw, who now have a smaller/dwindling player base who have to pay more to cover the losses, fewer new recruits to draw on, and a lot more hostility in the background towards them. And the funny thing is It never would, or should have happened to the extend that it did if gw hadn't done what it did. We'd just be annoying voices in the wilderness, whereas right now, we're the barbarians at the gates of the empire.
Certainly, it's not the fault of players for WHFB not selling. But it IS reality that WHFB was not selling well enough for Games Workshop to continue it at its vector.
Gw are simply reaping the crops they have been sowing for ten years. Wfb needed to be managed better, not killed and replaced. Aos is fine. Aos has value and potential, but in its current form, it arguably caters to a minority as it caters to very specialised tastes, and requires a very specialised niche of the playerbase. Aos is a decent game in its own right for what it is and what it tries to be, but it is arguably a terrible replacement for what wfb was.
Games Workshop wants to be a company that builds relatively expensive infantry models and complex elite models, and really expensive centerpiece models, paired with expensive books, for people who want them and can afford them. It doesn't want to be a company that makes cheap models and cheap rules that 14 year-olds can get into with allowance money, because it doesn't see the possibility of its next quarter billion dollars that way. Whether it's right or not, it thinks that the universe of young teenagers with allowance money who are interested in wargaming and miniatures is not large enough to generate hundreds of millions of dollars, so it focuses on the market of employed persons to whom a few hundred (or even a few thousand) dollars a year on a hobby is okay if it's something they want to do.
In any case, it's not good enough for Games Workshop that people buy some models, are happy with a game, and every 5 years or so buy some new rules that they can keep using the models they bought 15 years ago on. In this way, they will never make another quarter billion dollars, because the niche isn't big enough. Instead, they need to create an atmosphere where the relatively small customerbase feels compelled to go out, every single year, and buy more and more models and grow their army, and reasons to buy their hundred dollar campaign adventures and dozen or so fifty dollar rulebooks a year.
No. Selling to a handful of massive big spenders like yourself is not the end game. It helps, certainly, but you need an ecosystem thst comprises a solid backbone of an invested and active playerbase as well. Those young teenagers are the next generation. gw don't focus on a handful of big spenders (and with respect, I think you let your own personal circumstances cloud your judgement here), their policy is 'churn and burn' where you get them in, get them to buy stuff for an edition or two, and when they move on, they are replaced with the next set of wide eyes initiates. In that sense, it is good enough to get someone to buy some models, be happy with it, and by some new rules five years later. They're not expected to stay more than two editions. The next generation can take it from there. The loss of current players will be made up by the next generation buying in. Of which the current generation will groom and mentor while they themselves are active, involved and enthusiastic.
But the reality is, to perpetuate this massive profit machine, you need games that sell a crap ton of models, and WHFB wasn't doing that. Given that GW has the time and money to experiment, and they did not value the current state of WHFB, they decided to do AoS.... something different..
Which says more about their refusal to understand why, or engage in market research as to why wfb was failing than anything else. To perpetuate the massive profit machine, you need to think a long term, sustainable and renewable ecosystem that reflects the desires of the player base. Aos is largely not that. ,Selling a crapton of models' sounds all well and good, but the story is a lot more,complicated than that.
I applaud them for trying. Why not try to do something different? Plus, I actually enjoy the game, though, as I said, I have no desire to rush out and buy models that I'll spend my next thousand hours on, and if they want 40k levels of success, they need some people who feel that way. Maybe there are enough such people; maybe there aren't. On top of that, I don't think WHFB was attracting very many new players.
.
I applaud them for trying as well, but aos should have been its own game, or the new lead in for the specialist games, rather than a replacement for a core line. A game this (ahem) 'radical' to the playerbase is a huge risk. Especially when it invalidates 'how' so many people play, and pushes a style of play so many are unfamiliar with, Whilst simultaneously neither giving the tools nor directions for its use.
Wfb wasn't attracting very many players because the rules changes for eight were hugely unpopular, and the front loaded and prohibitively expensive cost of the buy in was a massive turn off. You know, it's the problem of Tim and Fred who like the look of it, but find out that there are so few current players (because eighth drove them away) but fair enough, they can play each other, maybe get their mates involved... Then they see the cost required to get up to a 'normal sized' game and they say gtfo, let's check out warmachine or infinity instead. That there is the problem that needed addressing, not terminate the patient.
I don't think AoS will be successful in the sense of growing to the #2 spot in miniature wargames, or to getting sales back to what they were during 6e WHFB. I do think that it will increase the sales from where they were in 8e, but as I have argued, this is not a very high bar to beat. Plus, it might not be enough.
I think it might do ok in the long term, but it has a lot of hurdles to get over, and frankly, if it doesn't perform as well as gw want, they're as likely to kill their involvement in fantasy entirely rather than reinvent it, or go back to wfb.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/11/21 21:21:43
Again the sales argument is circular - the only reason fantasy struggled was GW's decisions towards the end. Similar decisions are already stunting AoS, so positing it as the solution to fantasy's problems is just off from what is really happening (imo). The same sales info being mentioned about fantasy indicts it as already badly struggling from the interest it garnered at launch.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/11/21 21:56:54
"They stopped supporting it because nobody bought them."
"Yeah, but people lost interest because there was no support."
Only it appears that rather than the relatively clean kill, rules wise, that they bestowed on SGs, allowing them to function in the wilderness somewhat until somebody at Lenton figured out that multiple revenue streams are a good thing, and then had the subsequent inspiration that streams can dry up without maintainance and brought them back, WHFB has been cursed with a slow death that caused the player base to atrophy long before they pulled the trigger.
I mean, even if AOS had been widely received as good, they'd have had an uphill battle restoring it to anything like parity, sales wise, with 40K, let alone with what it actually is.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Hell, there are more people in my group that bought Warhammer 8th edition as a starter for Kings of War than bought it in its own right.
The consensus seems to be that the box had great value, but that the rules were sub par.
Until the Kings of War league started up, only one person had bought Warhammer 8th (the hardcover rulesbook).
Now three have bought Island of Blood (the boxed set) - and ywo have bought more than one set.
The main selling point seems to be the High Elves - though one person has begun a Ratkin army using the Skaven from the boxes that other people have bought.
Even I will admit that the High Elves in that box are nice - but those Skaven... are not nearly as well made.
No one has bought the Age of Sigmar box, even for use in Kings of War.
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
Even I will admit that the High Elves in that box are nice - but those Skaven... are not nearly as well made.
Matter of opinion I guess, I think they were some of the best models GW have producerd for that line, even though 2/3 of them were just a previous set [the Clanrats] with am simplified parts breakdown.
I've got to say, my interest in AoS has waned immensely. I like the mechanics in theory, but the reality of constantly flicking through a big folder of warscrolls just slows it down far too much for me. I'm not interested in the fluff in the slightest. I'll probably finish painting the stuff I picked up for it at some point, but I haven't played a game of it since August.
Even I will admit that the High Elves in that box are nice - but those Skaven... are not nearly as well made.
Matter of opinion I guess, I think they were some of the best models GW have producerd for that line, even though 2/3 of them were just a previous set [the Clanrats] with am simplified parts breakdown.
I am speaking from a technical viewpoint.
Triangular tufts of fur rather than any attempt to make a realistic fur texture - at a guess, they made a master 3d sculpt of that triangular tuft, then copied and pasted.
Voids filled in with waste plastic rather than any attempt to avoid having the voids.
Basically, they were lazy sculpts.
You can like them - they may be fun to paint, but the technical skill was lacking, even compared to the models that appeared in Mordheim, how many years ago?
They were utilizing a 'stylized' appearance to mask the shortcuts they took in making the models.
But you are still allowed to like them.
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
Talys wrote: However, you can walk into any gaming store, and just ask them how WHFB did in the last couple of years, and I doubt you'll hear a store owner tell you that it was awesome.
Depends on the store though. And let's be fair - 'wfb wasn't doing well, so scrap it for aos' is a very simplistic reading of the situation. There are a lot of reasons why people turned their backs on fantasy, or never jumped on board. Gw's management of the game was a big reason.
@Skink - You sad regarding the chapterhouse case: "$647k sales from 7th edition WHFB and $1,645k from 5th edition 40k." Is that $647,000 USD versus $1,645,000 USD? What does that even mean? That can't be 40k's North American sales. I mean, that number is just way too small; it would peg North America at less than 1% of GW's annual sales during 5e...
@MWHistorian & RiTides - I think it's a perfectly fine theory that 8e hurt the WHFB community and WHFB sales, although there could have also been other contributing reasons that people left WHFB, such as other games. But you need to act in the present and you can't rewrite the past. If GW went back to 7e-esque rules, would it help? The damage is done, so to speak, right? Rather than try to win back some of the people who left (this is a difficult task), GW opted to try to win some people who would never have considered WHFB at all.
Going back to seventh, or earlier rules would be a start, maybe. Going back to 7th or earlier price points would be a bigger step. The rot didn't set in with 8th, 8th was just when the trickle became a flood,
Now, rather than aiming at a new audience rather trying to win back some of the people who had left, well, that's fair enough. But not only did they not even try to win back those who left, they properly turned on them, and rather than having disinterested former customers, they created a very alienated, angry and extremely hostile group of people who are not afraid to be vocal about it. Add In all the negative backlash from those same former customers and Now, in a word of mouth based hobby, you have a very negative word of mouth, and you have no existing playerbase that new players can latch onto (because you've blown up their world, and actively said theyre not welcome anyway), feed off of, and integrate with.
As for people turning to other games, the big reason for the initial huge (or even explosive) growth of games like warmachine after its mk2 release (specifically 2011-2013)was because people were driven from gw games in droves by appalling game direction and shocking price increases. I love warmachine, but it, and games like malifaux, infinity etc would never have reached its level of popularity had gw not mismanaged their primacy in the hobby to the extent that they did and created a disenfranchised pool of players who were frankly looking for something better. 40k was (and is) the big game in this industry. For decades, fantasy was number 2. For those decades, if you didn't play, or want to play 40k, you played fantasy. It was a self sustaining Eco system that other wargames simply didn't have and could only look on at with envy. But in the last five years, gw had really haemorrhaged customers with their corporate direction and game design and pricing policy. It was those disenfranchised players that pp, wyrd, cb and all the other companies picked up on, and those gw refugees for the large part ended up becoming the thriving self sustaining ecosystem those other games needed to thrive, and then began shouting their merits and and drawing in new players thst would previously have automatically been drawn to gw. Win win for those smaller companies. Lose lose for gw, who now have a smaller/dwindling player base who have to pay more to cover the losses, fewer new recruits to draw on, and a lot more hostility in the background towards them. And the funny thing is It never would, or should have happened to the extend that it did if gw hadn't done what it did. We'd just be annoying voices in the wilderness, whereas right now, we're the barbarians at the gates of the empire.
Certainly, it's not the fault of players for WHFB not selling. But it IS reality that WHFB was not selling well enough for Games Workshop to continue it at its vector.
Gw are simply reaping the crops they have been sowing for ten years. Wfb needed to be managed better, not killed and replaced. Aos is fine. Aos has value and potential, but in its current form, it arguably caters to a minority as it caters to very specialised tastes, and requires a very specialised niche of the playerbase. Aos is a decent game in its own right for what it is and what it tries to be, but it is arguably a terrible replacement for what wfb was.
Games Workshop wants to be a company that builds relatively expensive infantry models and complex elite models, and really expensive centerpiece models, paired with expensive books, for people who want them and can afford them. It doesn't want to be a company that makes cheap models and cheap rules that 14 year-olds can get into with allowance money, because it doesn't see the possibility of its next quarter billion dollars that way. Whether it's right or not, it thinks that the universe of young teenagers with allowance money who are interested in wargaming and miniatures is not large enough to generate hundreds of millions of dollars, so it focuses on the market of employed persons to whom a few hundred (or even a few thousand) dollars a year on a hobby is okay if it's something they want to do.
In any case, it's not good enough for Games Workshop that people buy some models, are happy with a game, and every 5 years or so buy some new rules that they can keep using the models they bought 15 years ago on. In this way, they will never make another quarter billion dollars, because the niche isn't big enough. Instead, they need to create an atmosphere where the relatively small customerbase feels compelled to go out, every single year, and buy more and more models and grow their army, and reasons to buy their hundred dollar campaign adventures and dozen or so fifty dollar rulebooks a year.
No. Selling to a handful of massive big spenders like yourself is not the end game. It helps, certainly, but you need an ecosystem thst comprises a solid backbone of an invested and active playerbase as well. Those young teenagers are the next generation. gw don't focus on a handful of big spenders (and with respect, I think you let your own personal circumstances cloud your judgement here), their policy is 'churn and burn' where you get them in, get them to buy stuff for an edition or two, and when they move on, they are replaced with the next set of wide eyes initiates. In that sense, it is good enough to get someone to buy some models, be happy with it, and by some new rules five years later. They're not expected to stay more than two editions. The next generation can take it from there. The loss of current players will be made up by the next generation buying in. Of which the current generation will groom and mentor while they themselves are active, involved and enthusiastic.
But the reality is, to perpetuate this massive profit machine, you need games that sell a crap ton of models, and WHFB wasn't doing that. Given that GW has the time and money to experiment, and they did not value the current state of WHFB, they decided to do AoS.... something different..
Which says more about their refusal to understand why, or engage in market research as to why wfb was failing than anything else. To perpetuate the massive profit machine, you need to think a long term, sustainable and renewable ecosystem that reflects the desires of the player base. Aos is largely not that. ,Selling a crapton of models' sounds all well and good, but the story is a lot more,complicated than that.
I applaud them for trying. Why not try to do something different? Plus, I actually enjoy the game, though, as I said, I have no desire to rush out and buy models that I'll spend my next thousand hours on, and if they want 40k levels of success, they need some people who feel that way. Maybe there are enough such people; maybe there aren't. On top of that, I don't think WHFB was attracting very many new players.
.
I applaud them for trying as well, but aos should have been its own game, or the new lead in for the specialist games, rather than a replacement for a core line. A game this (ahem) 'radical' to the playerbase is a huge risk. Especially when it invalidates 'how' so many people play, and pushes a style of play so many are unfamiliar with, Whilst simultaneously neither giving the tools nor directions for its use.
Wfb wasn't attracting very many players because the rules changes for eight were hugely unpopular, and the front loaded and prohibitively expensive cost of the buy in was a massive turn off. You know, it's the problem of Tim and Fred who like the look of it, but find out that there are so few current players (because eighth drove them away) but fair enough, they can play each other, maybe get their mates involved... Then they see the cost required to get up to a 'normal sized' game and they say gtfo, let's check out warmachine or infinity instead. That there is the problem that needed addressing, not terminate the patient.
I don't think AoS will be successful in the sense of growing to the #2 spot in miniature wargames, or to getting sales back to what they were during 6e WHFB. I do think that it will increase the sales from where they were in 8e, but as I have argued, this is not a very high bar to beat. Plus, it might not be enough.
I think it might do ok in the long term, but it has a lot of hurdles to get over, and frankly, if it doesn't perform as well as gw want, they're as likely to kill their involvement in fantasy entirely rather than reinvent it, or go back to wfb.
Incredibly well said!!! I think WFB needed something akin to a skirmish size game system(not a box set) that would allow players to pick the army they like and build their collection up from relatively few models(under $100) and ramp up to full 2500 point armies that cost $600-800. When Skirmish and Warbands were introduced, there was virtually no marketing done for them, and as such GW lost on the potential of those rules systems to pull new players in to the WFB system and get hooked enough to want to spend the kind of money needed to play full size games.
Even if the game system of AoS was what GW wanted to move to, taking the lore and story of WFB and just blowing it all to hell was the worst possible way to do it. It immediately made veterans feel shafted, and the vast majority of them seemed to not even give AoS a second glance.
"Bryan always said that if the studio ever had to mix with the manufacturing and sales part of the business it would destroy the studio. And I have to say – he wasn’t wrong there! ... It’s become the promotions department of a toy company." -- Rick Priestly
talys wrote:But for sure, WHFB has NOT been successful in the last decade, and GW couldn't justify its existence.
You don't know that. It's just a claim you've made to justify the invention of AoS.
If it's true, GW are even worse idiots than people think, to have 10 years to create a new game and all they can come up with is Dread Fleet and AoS.
Thousands of man-years of design effort would have been poured into those two titles. If this is true, GW really are fethed.
Everyone is right that we don't have the WHFB/40k breakdown. However, there is TONS of breadcrumbs that lead me to the conclusion 40k sells a lot more product than WHFB. How many public fansites are there of WHFB over the years, and what kind of membership did they have? On the front page of Dakka and in Dakka's showcase how many WHFB models do you see compared to 40k models? In the DCM "how much did you spend" forum, do you see anyone spending thousands of dollars on Fantasy models; and out of all the big purchases there, how many of them are anything other than 40k? When GW did the Summer of Sigmar, people bitch and moaned for a return to 40k *everywhere*. I mean, every online forum or news/rumor site that does GW stuff. When was the last time GW was on a 40k spree that you saw a similar type of moaning for a return to Fantasy? How many retail stores have you ever been in that thought WHFB outsold or came close to the sales of 40k? How many retailers have you ever met that were happy with their WHFB sales? What's the ratio of models printed in Warhammer Visions of 40k vs Fantasy? How many organized tournaments did you see in the Dakka Tournaments forum of 40k vs Fantasy?
It just goes on and on. Of course, it could all just add up to WHFB players being *different* than 40k players. Maybe they don't like the Internet so much, and they buy tons of stuff in a small number of stores in areas of the world that some of us have never been to. Maybe WHFB's sales are 20% of 40k, and GW is crazy and just axed it because they're insane or hate their customers. Maybe WHFB fans just don't like fan sites. Maybe they just don't like tournaments. Maybe...
But there is a pile of evidence that *suggests* that WHFB's sales were poor -- when compared to the juggernaut money-making machine that is the grimdark. And, we should believe that GW likes holding onto things that make them tons of money and likes letting go of things that don't.
Incidentally, they DID come up with LoTR, which did pretty well
In my opinion, the problem for GW is really the irony of 40k's success. 40k is a really tough act to beat ** in terms of profit **. Is GW capable of writing a good game that people will buy, like, enjoy, and play? Sure, I think they are. Look at Betrayal at Calth. GREAT game. But are they interested in doing these? I don't really think so, because, well, where's the money in it? It's not going to make them another hundred million dollars. They're looking for a business unit that will sell them the equivalent of a million $100 boxes EVERY YEAR, without taking away from 40k, and given estimated sizes of our hobby niche, that just isn't that easy.
Therefore, again, just in my opinion, GW should stop trying to follow 40k/LoTR with another hundred million dollar game. They should give up on massive centerpiece models and complex HIPS MPP sprues for a secondary game, and just go the way of PP/Infinity/Malifaux for their other games. Make them with resin or metal, or snapfit plastic; make the games relatively cheap and accessible, and concentrate on better-than-average single pose models for enjoyable games. Not because it's profitable, and not because it's what they want to do, but because it's mindshare, and it fills the shelves with stuff people want.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/11/21 22:09:45
I remember being very up and down about AoS's release.
I was mortified by End Times and the destruction of a world I've loved since I was 10, 30 years ago... I also thought it was painfully reminiscent of White Wolf destroying all their RPGs in a huge apocalypse to then usher in the combined World of Darkness range, a move that tanked the company. Whatever my feelings about GW on any given day, it's entire destruction isn't what I or the majority of people want.
Then I was pleased, I was actually stoked, by talk of a 4 page rulebook. I've been finding a great deal of solace in Attack Wing recently and the idea of a quick, tidy set of rules appealed, as did a smaller, skirmish based game. I started compiling ideas in my head for the ranges I would collect, I started filling online shopping carts...
Then I discovered no points values and the 'amusing' rules. At which point I set it down, emptied the online shopping carts and lost any sort of interest in it at all.
Its still early days to draw conclusions regarding AOS success IMO.
Under the circumstances it was released who knows if this actually is a mild hit.
Lets not forget the EOT book spam fiasco and the half year? wait for AOS with no news or anything... Then in the middle of the silence AOS is speculated to be the WFB next edition... so yeah when AOS is finally here its NOT going to have any honeymoon by the contrary its a hairy and messy divorce from day one.
This is not WFB its a different product, its just unfortunate that GW glued this to WFB and simply does not know how handle things. AOS will never be judged by its own merits and will always ( at least for the first years) be a shadow of WFB.
Personally I think this game has huge potential to attract new casual gamers but its only on its infancy, it needs to mature more before conclusions can be made.
Then GW should have made a more complete product on release.
It doesn't take several novels to establish a well thought out and complete setting. How many AOS novels and still no one has anything but a vague idea of what's going on.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
MWHistorian wrote: Then GW should have made a more complete product on release.
It doesn't take several novels to establish a well thought out and complete setting. How many AOS novels and still no one has anything but a vague idea of what's going on.
The story following end times is not interesting enough. Sigmarines in golden armor sounds just ridiculous.
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
In my opinion, the problem for GW is really the irony of 40k's success. 40k is a really tough act to beat ** in terms of profit **. Is GW capable of writing a good game that people will buy, like, enjoy, and play? Sure, I think they are. Look at Betrayal at Calth. GREAT game. But are they interested in doing these? I don't really think so, because, well, where's the money in it? It's not going to make them another hundred million dollars. They're looking for a business unit that will sell them the equivalent of a million $100 boxes EVERY YEAR, without taking away from 40k, and given estimated sizes of our hobby niche, that just isn't that easy.
Therefore, again, just in my opinion, GW should stop trying to follow 40k/LoTR with another hundred million dollar game. They should give up on massive centerpiece models and complex HIPS MPP sprues for a secondary game, and just go the way of PP/Infinity/Malifaux for their other games. Make them with resin or metal, or snapfit plastic; make the games relatively cheap and accessible, and concentrate on better-than-average single pose models for enjoyable games. Not because it's profitable, and not because it's what they want to do, but because it's mindshare, and it fills the shelves with stuff people want.
I don't really think that it was 40k that was so great but GW slowly pouring more and more recourses into 40k (well, Space Marines) that made it great, and accidentally/lazily letting everything else wither instead of supporting it. It started with Specialist Games, each got some support but then stopped. And now we have seen them doing the same for WHFB and LOTR/the Hobbit, recent upgrades for both went more sideways or even backwards instead of actually improving the games while GW kept making more and more Space Marine variations because that's where the easy money is.
If 40k (the original Rogue trader) were released 10 years later than it actually was it probably would have ended as a Specialist Game and gotten the same two years and then death support the others got. But early GW invested time and recourses in improving the setting/rules of their games and they both grew (that's how they grew into the dominating company in a niche). Later they saw that 40k was starting to make more money and it slowly moved from a bit more support into GW becoming 40k Workshop than anything else. Forgeworld kinda had the same process just faster. Once they actually started producing WHFB stuff and also 30k the 30k just made easier money and support for the rest withered. I think it was mostly 30k Space Marines too and the Solar Auxilia were made by a sculptor in his free time before they were released, otherwise we would have gotten only Space Marines and nothing else.
GW grew and then specialized themselves into easy money and these days (with all the competition) this approach seems to be hurting them (why else change WHFB into AOS and restart Specialist Games?) because having one hit product works when you sell iPhones to everybody who has money but not when you try to sell a few very specific toy soldiers (Space Marines) to everybody who has money and knows of your niche (that you don't advertises much). They are essentially a tiny little bird that evolved on an isolated island and lives quite happily as long as nothing changes but they also think they are some majestic eagle who can survive any change in their ecosystem. Things have changes/are still changing and Games Workshop is slowly getting suspicious that they are not that dominant and secure in their niche and neighbouring stronger predators (boardgames and wargame-boardgames like Star Wars) and scavengers (other smaller wargames) have disrupted their cozy lifestyle.
It's not 40k that became complacent but GW and their games are only to blame insofar as they were produced by GW who had it in their power to make different choices instead of going for the easy route and disregarding any competition or problems. I don't think they are looking for a game that magically makes them $100 mil a year, they barely got one that can manage that (and it seems they have no idea how to replicate that or they would be a $200 mil company like Asmodee) and got that only by actually building on top of success and growing it slowly while letting other possible success stories just wither because at some point it didn't look as profitable as Space Marines.
While I do think it would be a good idea to do all the stuff you mentioned in the second quoted paragraph I don't think they ever were looking for a new $100 mil opportunity. Judging from what they did since getting the LOTR license they seem to have just reacted mostly to the success they themselves can't actually explain that precisely.
Yeah, it's interesting to see Talys list LOTR as a success. It worked because of the movie bubble - but it suffered from very similar mistakes that GW has made with their other games that kept it from being sustainable. The Hobbit sales were an absolute fiasco... their handling of LOTR is nothing to hold up to for fantasy to aspire to (i.e. a long term, profitable game, rather than a quick sale for short term gain).
I don't think it's unfair to say LotR succeeded in spite of GW, not because of them.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
There were advertisements in magazines aside from GW house organs for the game.
It had reasonable prices - even when compared to other GW prices.
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
Remember, I defined success or failure in terms of profitability, not anything else. As opposed to, for example, an enthusiastic, long term customer base or franchise.
It really doesn't matter why it succeeded -- LOTR made them a lot of money, and they would like a product to replace that revenue.
LOTR making them a lot of money had almost nothing to do with their strategies, though, and more the fact that it was an international phenomenon at the time! The fact that they want to "replace that revenue" is pretty much irrelevant! They are going about it in probably the least effective way possible - repeating their past mistakes and actually doubling down on them.
Talys, you keep talking about what GW wants, but do you recognize that they in fact don't know (and don't actually bother to look at) what the customer/market wants? They are trying to find a new customer to fit this product - but by doing no marketing and offering very little support to the game, they are putting their managers and sales people in a nearly impossible position, having intentionally alienated past customers and not doing what's needed to find a new niche (since that's what AoS would mean / need to succeed in the way you're describing).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/21 23:37:39
Yet they don't grasp that the reach of LotR was key to its success, and retreat more and more from anything that isn't their own stores and website?
Edit: Rhode Island ninja'd!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/11/21 23:35:48
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Yeah, i agree with what you're saying talys. The problem (for them) is that the 'why it succeeded' is important to the 'making a lot of money' for them. I don't see anything other than star wars having the potential to make a similar amount of money, and they don't have that license. What i think they need to do is maximize their sales of existing products, and to do that they need market research (amongst other things). AoS was the result of randomly changing a core product without attempting to improve it: all that does is risk damaging the fan/customerbase without good reason.
Torga_DW wrote: I don't see anything other than star wars having the potential to make a similar amount of money, and they don't have that license. What i think they need to do is maximize their sales of existing products, and to do that they need market research (amongst other things). AoS was the result of randomly changing a core product without attempting to improve it: all that does is risk damaging the fan/customerbase without good reason.
Talys wrote: However, there is TONS of breadcrumbs that lead me to the conclusion 40k sells a lot more product than WHFB.
I don't think anyone has ever suggested 40k sells a lot more product than WHFB, it just depends on your definition of "a lot" and whether you consider the past few stagnant years toward the end of 8th or consider the past few editions. It's also important to realise that WHFB doesn't NEED to sell as well as 40k to justify its existence, it's naive to think every product has to sell as well as your best product and it's even more naive to think it's a good idea to cut everything that isn't your best selling product.
I was going to go through breadcrumbs and give explanations how WHFB could have been quite popular in spite of your personal observations but it got too cumbersome. But the answer to a lot of them is simply what I said on the previous page, which is that I think WHFB has always been more popular in mainland Europe than the USA.
Obviously it was starting to fail otherwise GW wouldn't have killed it (noting we don't know what GW consider "failing" to be), but it's all for nought if you don't look at the REASONS why it started to fail. I'm sure a large part of it (not necessarily the biggest part) is simply because WHFB are more diverse in their army selection where as 40k has Spehss Mareenz that GW could always fall back on... which is probably why we now have Sigmarines. I tend to think a large number of the reasons WHFB failed aren't being properly addressed in AoS anyway.
I tend to be of the opinion AoS is failing too and that is going to be problematic for GW going forward as well.
I would just like to put this here:
WHFB was extremely popular in my area during 7th edition. Sue there where issues and those TFG's whom brought nothing but Brettonian Cavalry lists but the game was still extremely popular. When 8th edition dropped there was a whole party and the interest remained the same. many of us where happy that cavalry where no longer brokenly good (The afore mentioned Brettonian Cavalry list being murderously good at removing entire armies) and the the game seemed to have changed for the better. Then the codec's started dropping and the number of models needed increased. A few grumbles but nothing too bad and people liked the chance to add some exciting new units to their forces. Then the prices increased and that is when the popularity wained. It was also around this time that some of the nastier cheese lists started to come to the fore - gunline armies with some magical support where nigh unbeatable, especially to a poor Skaven player whom could not hope to compete.
With the increased prices and number of models needed the stream of new players began to dry up and the meta started to stagnate. By now the powergamers had switched to gunline armies - my regular whom had once run a Brettonian Cavalry list was now assembling a Dark Elf army - and the random rolls combined with the vastly overpowered magic phase (you had better have maxed out on wizards) was beginning to cause people to lose interest in the game.
I last played a game of Warhammer Fantasy Battles in the year of 2013 at Worthy Games (now sadly shut down) with my Skaven against a Chaos Dwarf gunline army. We rolled for missions and got the one whereby the table is divided into three parts and you roll for each unit to see where it is placed. Long story short I was fethed over by the rolls and ended up with most of my Skaven crammed into the hard left flank and some more in the centre with no room to manoeuvre and facing the Chaos Dwarf's whom had got similar roles with all of his stuff on his right flank (my left) bar two cannons, one of which was in the centre and one on the other flank.
Out of over 200 Skaven about 18 made it into combat.
After that I transferred to Warmachine and only looked back in sorrow.
TLDR:
GW fethed over WHFB by introducing far too many random dice rolls, increasing the number of models needed to play with whilst at the same time doubling or even tripling the cost of them, vastly overpowering the magic phase and making shooting far too effective whilst also making missile units core for most armies.
Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
@Skink - Done And BTW... I pretty much agree with you
Incidentally, I don't think WHFB (or any other game, really) ever had the same appetite for the really big, expensive centerpiece models that 40k tables are now littered with, even though GW produced those models for WHFB. You can imagine a table full of riptides and wraithknights, or squads of them, but I can't really imagine a guy fielding an army full of Bloodthirsters or Treemen. I've certainly never seen it.
1. It is a casual game. Easy silly rules, smash together and roll dice. Usually mentioned along with having a few beers.
2. It is not a casual game. It takes a lot of cash. It takes a lot of time to assemble and paint. It requires effort to create a balanced game. There are numerous books to read and immersing yourself in the fluff takes some mental effort. The only "casual" miniatures games I would say are the pre-paints. Any game requiring modeling and assembly are not casual in my opinion.
3. People that want a casual game will buy a video system and get drunk while shooting at each other online, or play something like X-wing.
4. People that want a more serious war game do not want to act like they are riding a horse for a +1 or whatever. Serious gamers will find a tighter rule set with army lists and points.
It just seems to be a product positioned to appeal to a very small niche. People who spend hours reading fluff and painting armies, huge amounts of cash on figures, set aside an entire room in the house to have a game table and terrain, and yet are satisfied with ultra simplistic rules. I tend to think it lacks the depth to sustain the interest of the veteran gamers. In time it might simply vanish, or become a lesson in what not to do in the hobby.
Not sure if there is a market or not. Time will tell.
I personally quite like 8th edition but not the army books. I will be staying with that version and using the older Ravening Hordes or 3rd edition books.
I agree with the OP regarding prices. 100% of the reason I stopped buying was my being of a member of the working class and unable to afford it. The company seems to be trying to position themselves as a sort of "snob" product. Only for the rich. There are cars I don't drive, foods I don't eat, and clothes I don't wear. And miniatures I do not buy. I fully respect those with the cash to indulge- good for you. No class envy or anything. It is just not in my budget.
Maybe that is the real reason WFB was failing? Not enough rich people to replace all the regular people thrown out of the hobby?
Talys wrote: @Skink - Done And BTW... I pretty much agree with you
Incidentally, I don't think WHFB (or any other game, really) ever had the same appetite for the really big, expensive centerpiece models that 40k tables are now littered with, even though GW produced those models for WHFB. You can imagine a table full of riptides and wraithknights, or squads of them, but I can't really imagine a guy fielding an army full of Bloodthirsters or Treemen. I've certainly never seen it.
Before I elaborate on this further, allow me to first of all answer this very specific point with just one word - Smaug.
Now, moving on: you haven't seen armies full of those models because GW didn't make them to begin with. If you look back, you'll see that these giant flashy centerpieces came out for 40k just as Fantasy stopped getting as much attention. It's kinda hard to invest on gigantic centerpieces when they.. .don't exist.
On a simple example - I have three Dragons, and two Griffons for my High Elves and I was actually looking to get the Carmine Dragon from FW when I was doing the "gonna get back into FB after three years as a responsible husband and dad" planning. I guarantee you I'd buy a dragon the size of a IK if it was merely named "Indraugnir" ... and I only collect High Elves. You actually think the people who have 6/7 different armies wouldn't buy those too? I mean... ask any Lizardmen player if they would want a Warhound-sized Indominus Rex for their army and see what they'll tell you Or ask them if they would like to have a Dino-only army...
Now if you want to say the giant models don't exist because there aren't any lists that make them spammable like IK's are... that's a completely different thing. Though I am really sure I know a few Caledor-themed HE players that would totally buy a full Dragon army...
It's really hard to make an army with models that:
A) have no armylists to be played with;
B) don't actually... exist
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/22 03:11:04
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
Talys wrote: @Skink - Done And BTW... I pretty much agree with you
Incidentally, I don't think WHFB (or any other game, really) ever had the same appetite for the really big, expensive centerpiece models that 40k tables are now littered with, even though GW produced those models for WHFB. You can imagine a table full of riptides and wraithknights, or squads of them, but I can't really imagine a guy fielding an army full of Bloodthirsters or Treemen. I've certainly never seen it.
Well WHFB has stricter army composition rules and historically the big things have been designed to be one offs (for example rather than an army of dragons, you have a single character riding a dragon). I've seen people maxing out their "big toys" in WHFB games, but most armies when you max them out you still only have a couple of them. Lizardmen are one of the few armies that can do an effective monster mash and I've seen several Lizardmen armies doing that. But even there, that's more of a recent thing when Stegadons became optional as either special, rare or as a mount and in the more recent release where we got a bunch new monsters. I've seen several armies that max out on Treemen.
Personally I think it's for the better that for the most part WHFB didn't allow for armies of nothing but big things. Sure, it might alienate a few people who want to do it, but I think it's better for the game and better for the community as whole. It means your big centerpiece model is actually a centerpiece model and not just the standard size.
It doesn't really make all that much difference anyway whether you spend $60 on a 200pt monster or $50 on a 200pt regiment. In many cases the big monsters were actually more cost effective than building regiments.
Before I elaborate on this further, allow me to first of all answer this very specific point with just one word - Smaug.
Now, moving on: you haven't seen armies full of those models because GW didn't make them to begin with. If you look back, you'll see that these giant flashy centerpieces came out for 40k just as Fantasy stopped getting as much attention. It's kinda hard to invest on gigantic centerpieces when they.. .don't exist.
Yes, I love him too. But he's not really a WHFB unit, hahaha
I've actually bought one each of a bunch of the metal dragons, and almost all the plastic dragons. I think they're great models, and fun to put together, to boot. There ARE some really nice, big centerpiece models though: Nagash, Bloodthirster (and Skarbrand), Treeman Ancient, Malekith, Glotkin... just to name the ones that came since 2014. There are some gorgeous models from a few years past too, like the sphinx or phoenix.
To AllSeeingSkink's point, mostly, these guys are designed in the rules to be just one of (like, having 2 Nagash just doesn't work ). But even when that's not the case, I've never really seen a race to cram the board with big giant things. Please keep in mind, I never played WHFB even once, though I own the rules, read them for fun, and have painted a reasonable number of models (though not nearly an army). For me, I never got to the point where I had a finished army to play with, lol.
AoS has been pretty fun; it just doesn't really push me to spend more money on the game. If other people are like me (and I'm not suggesting that they are), then GW will have the problem of the people who DO enjoy it not spending more money. My wife is in much the same boat -- once her army is done, I doubt she'll add *anything* to it for a very long time, and she hasn't really been drawn to buy all the fiction (she's bought 2 books I think), even though she enjoys the game.
Of course... this is Version 1 of Age of Sigmar, and GW being GW has plenty of time and space to make changes in AoS 2.0 to make it better and keep iterating it as long as there is some interest in the franchise, so back to the original question... whether it's failing or not.... I think it's just way too early to tell.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/11/22 05:12:58
