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.

In other news Lost Patrol is available again.

(cricket chirps, tumbleweed blows by)

It will be available for pre-order on the 18th of June.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NL/Lost-Patrol-EN

 BrookM wrote:
It will be available for pre-order on the 18th of June.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NL/Lost-Patrol-EN

Excitement successfully contained.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Such a mess... so much cringe...

What I suspect is, if it wasn't for End Times and AoS, Total War Warhams would never be made. GW seems to have that stupid idea based on exactly nothing that a video game too similar to tt one will somehow kill/ damage the latter. Absurd as usual from GW and what we see here is imo an attempt to sell minis to video gamers as desk showpieces/ gadgets/ sth like that and maybe hook up a few on AoS as a side effects.

Who knows what they think though, they transcended business sense long time ago.

A video game the size of Warhammer Total War takes about... 3-6 years to make. Its very likely by the time the licensing deal was finalized it was still old hammer. Or it could be simply creative preference on their part. I doubt GW has any real concerns when developing games except to tell them lore stuff they can't do or cross ect. Unless its a cheap smaller annualized game.

Maybe but what CA is doing is mainly professional modding the engine of the last release and adding graphical flair heh. Also AoS might have been in plans already then.

But yes just a theory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Neronoxx wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
And of course no plans to rerelease Battle Fleet Gothic models, because why would anyone want to tie in to another successful video game...

BFG is supposed to be out next year.

So a year after the video game has cooled off.

Which is insane because literally all GW had to do was take the molds off the shelf and do a limited rerelease. Put out the plastics and the rules as a PDF.

"Back for 1 month only..."

Sometimes I can only assume that money causes them to get skin rashes.

That sounds like a good idea to you and me maybe.
I have no doubt hundreds would label it a 'cheap cash grab' and declare that GW has gone back to their old ways of scamming people with limited window releases. Seriously, GW is either allegic to money or an evil money rubbing company according to the community.

They would be praised to high heavens, look at Deathwatch Overkill.

Releasing a good game with good models and bringing more people into It through video game, that's not a cash grab that's good work.

Actually they have totally overhauled the engine. I can tell since I've played all the games since Empire. Attila ran atrociously for me and after years of patching Rome 2 worked fine. By atrocious I have a beastly PC that is currently kicking Total Warhammers ass in the fps on a ultra wide monitor and I'm not even using my two cards yet since SLI hasn't been implemented. They made it run astoundingly well compared to their previous releases so they did tons of work under the hood. It feels better and runs better. Your vastly underselling what it takes to make a game. Working on a mod with dedicated easy to use modding tools is one thing, but remaking a program and one as complex as a video game is no easy task. Considering they have failed in the optomization for most people for two games its a great step forward.

With your logic everything they have done since Empire has been mods since it all runs on the base engine. Also they implemented DX 12 support that actually improves the games performance a lot on AMD cards. So yeah they did work.

Lucky for you Gamgee... after it taking a year to badly patch SLI support into the last game, launching this one with zero SLI support doesn't have me optimistic.

My SLI 680's are showing their age, sure, but in SLI supported games, still do incredibly well, with high settings. Right now i've got Total War: Warhammer, chugging at 20fps or so on high settings, and sounding like a plane is taking off inside my PC tower.

 Gamgee wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Such a mess... so much cringe...

What I suspect is, if it wasn't for End Times and AoS, Total War Warhams would never be made. GW seems to have that stupid idea based on exactly nothing that a video game too similar to tt one will somehow kill/ damage the latter. Absurd as usual from GW and what we see here is imo an attempt to sell minis to video gamers as desk showpieces/ gadgets/ sth like that and maybe hook up a few on AoS as a side effects.

Who knows what they think though, they transcended business sense long time ago.

A video game the size of Warhammer Total War takes about... 3-6 years to make. Its very likely by the time the licensing deal was finalized it was still old hammer. Or it could be simply creative preference on their part. I doubt GW has any real concerns when developing games except to tell them lore stuff they can't do or cross ect. Unless its a cheap smaller annualized game.

Maybe but what CA is doing is mainly professional modding the engine of the last release and adding graphical flair heh. Also AoS might have been in plans already then.

But yes just a theory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Neronoxx wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
And of course no plans to rerelease Battle Fleet Gothic models, because why would anyone want to tie in to another successful video game...

BFG is supposed to be out next year.

So a year after the video game has cooled off.

Which is insane because literally all GW had to do was take the molds off the shelf and do a limited rerelease. Put out the plastics and the rules as a PDF.

"Back for 1 month only..."

Sometimes I can only assume that money causes them to get skin rashes.

That sounds like a good idea to you and me maybe.
I have no doubt hundreds would label it a 'cheap cash grab' and declare that GW has gone back to their old ways of scamming people with limited window releases. Seriously, GW is either allegic to money or an evil money rubbing company according to the community.

They would be praised to high heavens, look at Deathwatch Overkill.

Releasing a good game with good models and bringing more people into It through video game, that's not a cash grab that's good work.

Actually they have totally overhauled the engine. I can tell since I've played all the games since Empire. Attila ran atrociously for me and after years of patching Rome 2 worked fine. By atrocious I have a beastly PC that is currently kicking Total Warhammers ass in the fps on a ultra wide monitor and I'm not even using my two cards yet since SLI hasn't been implemented. They made it run astoundingly well compared to their previous releases so they did tons of work under the hood. It feels better and runs better. Your vastly underselling what it takes to make a game. Working on a mod with dedicated easy to use modding tools is one thing, but remaking a program and one as complex as a video game is no easy task. Considering they have failed in the optomization for most people for two games its a great step forward.

With your logic everything they have done since Empire has been mods since it all runs on the base engine. Also they implemented DX 12 support that actually improves the games performance a lot on AMD cards. So yeah they did work.

They moved particles and some other crap to gpu, that's not an overhaul. Their nonsensical engine used to do things like shadow calculations on cpu and that's why it was such an unbalanced system hog, with gpu heavily underused and top i5/i7 cpus choking unless oced to the sky. Btw hope they moved shadows to gpu as well or I'll snap.

Another thing is msaa. Rome 2 engine didn't support it and CA were rightfuly bashed for it so they switched back to Shogun 2 engine and implemented it. Sadly, entitled people with midrange pcs who can't read or use google started crying because they couldn't play it super smooth 60fps 4k ultra msaa x4. So, for TW Warhams CA implemented something they called "selective msaa" that only smooths the visible edges and is easier on the system. Probably looks much worse as well but I have to see it first. Anyway, if you're on sli then it was cpu in your case in Atilla.

Anyway it's Atilla engine, just optimised. And yes "modding" was a bit of a joke but it rather didn't take 3 years and surely not 6. Total War Warhamms adds a lot to gameplay I know but it's no secret they build on previous releases. Don't say it's bad or sth but in a way it's all updated Medieval 2.

It's not a critique btw. It's good they do it because it saves resources for other things. All I say is that they don't build from scratch and it doesn't take that much time.

They normally overhall the engine or at least add to it every 2 games from what I've been told.

Can't say I've ever had an issue running total war games, shogun 1 was a little slow untill I upgraded. Apart from that been mainly seeing 70fps average.

Big battles, huge unit size, sieges? I guess you sat on a top cpu each time or bought the games late after all the patches etc. Or just lucky, my laptop runs Total Wars really good looking at its specs, I think there was a lot of critique about Rome 2 for example being unpredictable like that.

Anyway they used Atilla engine and added little, which is good because they avoided the half broken release like Empire or Rome 2.

Even DX12 is coming later in a patch.

And another marketing-fail...
Well, its GW.

Not quite sure whats a failure about it ?
The total war game might well get people to buy those chars, and they can all be used in fantasy.

Seems like a good idea to me, they might get some more custom and all it costs them, is the time it took the chap to make up the page.

It isn't a "fail", it's just super cool and edgy to slag off GW.

My AMD HD 5970 plays it fine at ultra 1680x1050, so I can't complain. For some reason, it was telling me that it was running out of memory, when I have 16 gigs of SRAM and 5 gigs of GDDR5 on the card, so I just checked unlimited memory and it seems to be running swell since. Minor slowdowns in huge battles with lots of action on a quest battle when zoomed in but normally I'd just adjust the settings.

Considering I bought this card in either 2013 or 2014 and it's an AMD card, I'm not butthurt at all. That's good from my thinking. Runs better than Rome 2 did. Looks better too, but everything seems quite hazy like a deferred renderer or postprocessing filter is on.

Also, as far as the miniature link gimmick is concerned, it's not completely dumb since technically I did spend about $400 on books/miniatures based on playing Dawn of War: Dark Crusade.

However their selection of models is pretty hilarious. Big showcase stuff for their Age of Derpmar. Maybe not a bad introduction of starter models from the game, but I would have felt real sticker shock at seeing $90 pricetags attached to the models from my $60 game. Why spend $90 for one dissociated tabletop model when I can get 5 armies for $60. Esp. when the rules are so difficult to find - hidden on a Black Library page. They should put the dataslates under the product listings and explain that the rules are free, and you only need 2-3 big multiwound models to start playing.

Their rules are right under the model picture in the "rules".

Agreed they should highlight the low model skirmish element of AoS to potential customers. Also should highlight the start collecting sets.

Judging by their chosen miniatures I think they are going for individual display options as opposed to getting people to play the game itself.

Odd choice given the high likelihood of the target demographic having never built and painted anything.

Still I must applaud their efforts to cross promote at all. As well as Dawn of War worked at bringing in new players it could have been even more effective if they had put in even this level of integration.

Ankhalagon wrote:And another marketing-fail...
Well, its GW.

Um, ok...

"Hey, you liked the game, here's some models of things from the game that you may also like!"

I fail to see the fail.

Bull0 wrote:It isn't a "fail", it's just super cool and edgy to slag off GW.

Apparently so. GW is certainly not perfect, but they have been impressing me lately, and I don't see anything wrong with directing people to models that feature in a popular computer game.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

Ankhalagon wrote:And another marketing-fail...
Well, its GW.

Um, ok...

"Hey, you liked the game, here's some models of things from the game that you may also like!"

I fail to see the fail.

Bull0 wrote:It isn't a "fail", it's just super cool and edgy to slag off GW.

Apparently so. GW is certainly not perfect, but they have been impressing me lately, and I don't see anything wrong with directing people to models that feature in a popular computer game.

Umm, yeah, I'm pretty sure the fail people are talking about is the whole killing of the WHFB world a year or so before a PC game based in the WHFB world comes out when that game is from a big name developer and publisher which have established fan bases.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

Ankhalagon wrote:And another marketing-fail...
Well, its GW.

Um, ok...

"Hey, you liked the game, here's some models of things from the game that you may also like!"

I fail to see the fail.

Bull0 wrote:It isn't a "fail", it's just super cool and edgy to slag off GW.

Apparently so. GW is certainly not perfect, but they have been impressing me lately, and I don't see anything wrong with directing people to models that feature in a popular computer game.

Umm, yeah, I'm pretty sure the fail people are talking about is the whole killing of the WHFB world a year or so before a PC game based in the WHFB world comes out when that game is from a big name developer and publisher which have established fan bases.

And here's silly old me thinking the "fail" was referring to the actual topic of this thread, which is the minis/game cross-promotion. I should have guessed it was about the completely different topic of basing the computer game on a previous version of the wargame.

Still seems like faulty cross-promotion. Do you love playing the Empire in Total War? Do you like the Napoleonic blocks of troops moving across the battlefield, and the Old World setting? You can head on over to the GW website and get some miniatures that will kinda fulfill your Empire love, but not really anything else. Oh, and the whole world you just played in on the computer is thousands of years dead, so you can't really play out the same battles from there unless you want to play an unsupported chunk of the game, and now the world kinda looks like a Chaos-ridden Magic: The Gathering setting of planeswalkers.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

Ankhalagon wrote:And another marketing-fail...
Well, its GW.

Um, ok...

"Hey, you liked the game, here's some models of things from the game that you may also like!"

I fail to see the fail.

Bull0 wrote:It isn't a "fail", it's just super cool and edgy to slag off GW.

Apparently so. GW is certainly not perfect, but they have been impressing me lately, and I don't see anything wrong with directing people to models that feature in a popular computer game.

Umm, yeah, I'm pretty sure the fail people are talking about is the whole killing of the WHFB world a year or so before a PC game based in the WHFB world comes out when that game is from a big name developer and publisher which have established fan bases.

And here's silly old me thinking the "fail" was referring to the actual topic of this thread, which is the minis/game cross-promotion. I should have guessed it was about the completely different topic of basing the computer game on a previous version of the wargame.

The topic is about GW cross promotion, I'd say basing a PC game on a table top world you just killed is a pretty big failure in the context of cross promotion.

What is a "Freeguild General on Griffon"? That model is Karl Fething Franz!!

 TedNugent wrote:

However their selection of models is pretty hilarious. Big showcase stuff for their Age of Derpmar. Maybe not a bad introduction of starter models from the game, but I would have felt real sticker shock at seeing $90 pricetags attached to the models from my $60 game. Why spend $90 for one dissociated tabletop model when I can get 5 armies for $60. Esp. when the rules are so difficult to find - hidden on a Black Library page. They should put the dataslates under the product listings and explain that the rules are free, and you only need 2-3 big multiwound models to start playing.

I dunno, the little desk-toys for League of Legends are 20$ a pop, if i recall correctly. And way back when, I bought the collector's edition of Warcraft 3 for, I think, 60$? May have actually been less. A little while later, Warcraft action figures came out at something like 30$ a pop.

Tie-in merchandise in my experience has always been nigh ludicrously expensive, and if I were primarily a video gamer and wasn't aware of tabletop gaming (like I was back in the days of Warcraft 3 being new), I'd probably look at the models there, tell myself that's just the way things are, and think about getting the Ungrim Ironf-

Oh.

But honestly, if somebody had told me that you Total Warhammer was based on a tabletop game and explained the whole modeling aspect, etc. I'd be fascinated, but as soon as they told me I'd need 4 boxes of dwarf warriors and 2 boxes of quarrellers and 2 cannon kits to get anywhere close to the size of a battle I'd play in the games, I'd be extremely, extremely wary of it. Of course, that didn't seem to have stopped me.

Slightly funny, slightly off-topic story about how I got into Warhammer Fantasy Battles: I'd been playing 40k for a few years when I bought one of the Total War games. While playing it, it suddenly clicked that playing the Total War game was exactly like how I pictured WHFB playing from battle reports and people describing it on internet forums. A couple days later, me and my little brother went out and bought battalions of Dwarfs and Tomb Kings!

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The topic is about GW cross promotion, I'd say basing a PC game on a table top world you just killed is a pretty big failure in the context of cross promotion.

Oh, so it's another topic complaining about the end times and age of sigmar? OK. Yay. Can't wait.

 Bull0 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The topic is about GW cross promotion, I'd say basing a PC game on a table top world you just killed is a pretty big failure in the context of cross promotion.

Oh, so it's another topic complaining about the end times and age of sigmar? OK. Yay. Can't wait.

Quit yer whinging. This is a topic about GW cross promotion and you expect people not to talk about the fact GW killed WHFB shortly before TW:Warhammer came out?

I feel like it's kinda rule #1 of cross promotion, actually make sure product X still exists when product Y is released.

It's a step in the right direction, but why are they advertising the models to visitors to their website, who, presumably, in the main, already know about the existence of many, if not all, of the models?

Or is the GW website address plastered everywhere you look in the Total War bumpf to drive traffic?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The topic is about GW cross promotion, I'd say basing a PC game on a table top world you just killed is a pretty big failure in the context of cross promotion.

Oh, so it's another topic complaining about the end times and age of sigmar? OK. Yay. Can't wait.

Quit yer whinging. This is a topic about GW cross promotion and you expect people not to talk about the fact GW killed WHFB shortly before TW:Warhammer came out?

I feel like it's kinda rule #1 of cross promotion, actually make sure product X still exists when product Y is released.

Would it have been less of a "marketing fail" to not do the cross-promotion at all? The implication is since we've had end times and TW:W is set pre-end times it would make more sense / be less of a "fail" to not advertise the GW site to people who play TW:W. Which seems monumentally stupid. So in practise, it's just an empty moan about AoS. Great, can't get enough of that.

 Azreal13 wrote:
It's a step in the right direction, but why are they advertising the models to visitors to their website, who, presumably, in the main, already know about the existence of many, if not all, of the models?

Or is the GW website address plastered everywhere you look in the Total War bumpf to drive traffic?

It actually felt more like they were advertising Total War to GW customers than Warhammer to Total War customers. But who knows, GW advertising hasn't made much sense for a while, they just seem to like advertising to people who already spend money on them rather than trying to get in fresh blood.

The link seems to be gone from the GW site front page now. Though it's still in the AoS section of the site, so who knows who they're trying to advertise to at this point, apparently people who were already looking to buy AoS stuff.

"According to our reports, 73% of people that saw the ad in the AOS section of the website went on to buy some AOS related product!"

"Hurrah, this advertising lark is easy!"

 Bull0 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The topic is about GW cross promotion, I'd say basing a PC game on a table top world you just killed is a pretty big failure in the context of cross promotion.

Oh, so it's another topic complaining about the end times and age of sigmar? OK. Yay. Can't wait.

Quit yer whinging. This is a topic about GW cross promotion and you expect people not to talk about the fact GW killed WHFB shortly before TW:Warhammer came out?

I feel like it's kinda rule #1 of cross promotion, actually make sure product X still exists when product Y is released.

Would it have been less of a "marketing fail" to not do the cross-promotion at all? The implication is since we've had end times and TW:W is set pre-end times it would make more sense / be less of a "fail" to not advertise the GW site to people who play TW:W. Which seems monumentally stupid. So in practise, it's just an empty moan about AoS. Great, can't get enough of that.

Ok since you can't stop your whining, lets look at the other fails in it.

There's no link to the GW site or the miniatures anywhere on the Total War: Warhammer website. There's even a picture of the GW logo that for some reason doesn't link to the GW site. In fact it's the only logo that DOESN'T link to another page, the Sega logo links to Sega, the CA logo links to CA, the TW logo links to TW, the ESRB logo links to the ESRB sega certification page. The GW logo.... is just a picture that doesn't link anywhere.

Fail.

There's no link on the Steam page to the GW site or the miniatures.

Fail.

They didn't even bother labelling the models on the GW website to match what is in the game (Karl Franz? No, that's a "Freeguild General on a Griffon"). If you Google Karl Franz, the GW site doesn't come up first, it wouldn't come up at all if it weren't for the legacy WHFB URL still containing the name "Karl Franz" even though the page itself doesn't mention it anywhere.

Fail.

The link on the GW homepage was only there for a very short time.

Fail.

I'd be interested to know if there's links within the game itself to the GW website. I'm gonna hazard a guess and say "no".

Fail (pending someone telling me there is links in the game itself )


EDIT: My mistake, I just discovered on the Total War homepage there is a link to GW, there just isn't one on the Total War: Warhammer page.

I've always said that GW has wasted basically every possible cross-promotion opportunity that has come their way. Licensed products are pretty much just free money for them.

So it is sad to see them finally take notice of a potential area of cross-promotion and do so in such a half-assed way.

"Here's a link to some models. The game you are playing is very different from the one we sell though. Oh well. Buy all our playsets and toys I guess..."

Like everything GW does (or, really, doesn't do) with cross promotion, it's just lazy and not thought out at all.

I have no problem with what GW did. It's actually good that they are trying to get more people to the table top. NOTHING has been said if there will be AOS stuff in Warhammer Total War game. It might be released as DLC or even modded. Since the game supports mods.