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.

Krinsath is correct. A slightly different metaphor: generally speaking, the Ford F150 does not compete with the Honda Accord. But they are both vehicles! you might object. Four wheels with internal combustion engines! Okay. By and large, someone looking for a pick up truck is not choosing between a F150 and an Accord. Replace utility with luxury and you get GW's own infamous metaphor. Whether you can compare GW to a Porsche with a straight face, the point remains that the Accord Coupe is not direct competition for the Carrera - even though both are small cars.

 Krinsath wrote:
a) I wouldn't class them as rivals, and like others would presently describe them as competitors at the most superficial level as chasing entertainment dollars. While I expect that to change shortly, up until now I would not have said the money I spent on FFG decreased the amount I spent on GW. My spending on GW did decrease, but that was mainly because I had everything I cared to own from them (and likely more than I can paint/assemble in my lifetime)

On the other hand there are a lot of people (myself included) who significantly reduced spending on GW because of moving to X-Wing. The fact that some people buy both doesn't mean they aren't in competition.

b) that could easily be because you know many wargamers who like science-fiction, and in the UK one of the most common vectors for people to be wargamers was via GW and the sci-fi franchise was 40k. Thus, a large amount of overlap would be expected.

Which is kind of the point. Lots of wargamers like science fiction, and 40k and X-Wing are two different options for science fiction miniatures games. That overlap is why GW and FFG are competing.

While you can't spend the same money twice and money is typically finite, there is not an exclusivity clause in buying products. If I drop $300 on Armada, that's not going to stop me turning around and buying the next Betrayal at Calth-type game if I feel the value is there. It might mean I juggle the budget around a bit or shop around more, but that's not really a competition thing. I say this as someone who has 30+ ship X-Wing battle scene (including all the Epic ships!) near his desk at work.

That's assuming you don't drop another $300 on Armada for more ships, and that you have enough time to play both games. For many people spending $300 to get into Armada means that Armada is their primary (or even only) game and any whatever money is left after the primary game is going into non-gaming things instead of buying more games that they won't ever get a chance to play. This puts Armada in competition with 40k (because let's be honest, BaC is just a starter set for 40k) because picking one of them often excludes the other.

 Manchu wrote:
Krinsath is correct. A slightly different metaphor: generally speaking, the Ford F150 does not compete with the Honda Accord. But they are both vehicles! you might object. Four wheels with internal combustion engines! Okay. By and large, someone looking for a pick up truck is not choosing between a F150 and an Accord. Replace utility with luxury and you get GW's own infamous metaphor. Whether you can compare GW to a Porsche with a straight face, the point remains that the Accord Coupe is not direct competition for the Carrera - even though both are small cars.

But to make that metaphor work, you're still having to use examples intended for a completely different function, with costs that legitimately place some choices outside of the means of some or many.

X Wing and 40K are simply not that divergent.

Sure they are.

Go to the LGS, buy Dark Vengeance and the X-Wing starter. What happens next with each?

 Manchu wrote:
Krinsath is correct. A slightly different metaphor: generally speaking, the Ford F150 does not compete with the Honda Accord. But they are both vehicles! you might object. Four wheels with internal combustion engines! Okay. By and large, someone looking for a pick up truck is not choosing between a F150 and an Accord. Replace utility with luxury and you get GW's own infamous metaphor. Whether you can compare GW to a Porsche with a straight face, the point remains that the Accord Coupe is not direct competition for the Carrera - even though both are small cars.

Except that analogy doesn't work. The F150 and Accord are very different in function, GW and their competition are only different in aesthetic ways. The only functional difference between 40k and X-Wing is that X-Wing's models are pre-painted, but this is a difference of negligible value (or even negative value) for most of 40k's customers. And when you compare 40k to, say, Infinity you're talking about two different brands of 28mm science fiction miniatures that are clearly in competition. To say that they aren't competing requires a definition of "competition" that results in no miniatures company being in competition with anyone else, an obviously absurd claim to make.

Except your arguments are indisputably, obviously wrong Peregrine. (Trying on your conclusory style )

40k and X-Wing are both minatures games just like how the F150 and the Accord are both privately owned means of transport.

Granted when we come to the example of 40k compared to Infinity, perhaps then it is closer to a F150 compared to a sport crossover.

 Manchu wrote:
40k and X-Wing are both minatures games just like how the F150 and the Accord are both privately owned means of transport.

Again, functional differences. The F150 and Accord have them, and the differences between them separate "privately owned means of transport" into meaningful categories where vehicles within each category are in competition. For example, the F150 is clearly in competition with other pickup trucks (as demonstrated by all the marketing saying "the F150 is better than {other brand of truck}") and you can use the functional differences to say "this is a truck like the F150 and is in competition with it" or "this is a car more like the Accord and isn't competing as directly". With the definition you're trying to apply to miniatures games no miniatures game is in competition with any other miniatures game. And that claim is just as laughably wrong here as it is when GW says "we have no competition" in their financial reports.

 Manchu wrote:
Sure they are.

Go to the LGS, buy Dark Vengeance and the X-Wing starter. What happens next with each?

You assemble the components and have a game.

Then feel like a schmuck for buying Dark Vengeance.

 Manchu wrote:
Go to the LGS, buy Dark Vengeance and the X-Wing starter. What happens next with each?

You take your starter set home, assemble the components, and play a scaled-down version of the real game. The only real difference is that Dark Vengeance requires slogging through cutting a bunch of stuff off the sprue and gluing it together while X-Wing can be set up in a few minutes.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Sure they are.

Go to the LGS, buy Dark Vengeance and the X-Wing starter. What happens next with each?

You assemble the components and have a game.

Then feel like a schmuck for buying Dark Vengeance.

Hard to have an adult conversation about the differences between two of the industries biggest games when obviously someone either is so biased they cannot understand thye appeal of half of what they are discussing, or is simply being a child. Makes it real difficult.

No need to be so literal about metaphors: note how I gave examples of both "functional" and "aesthetc" (your arbitrary terms) differences, just to show how otherwise similar products are not direct competitors based on salient differences. The corresponding difference when it comes to games could be how they are marketed or it could be how they are played. X-Wing and 40k are world's apart on both counts.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Krinsath is correct. A slightly different metaphor: generally speaking, the Ford F150 does not compete with the Honda Accord. But they are both vehicles! you might object. Four wheels with internal combustion engines! Okay. By and large, someone looking for a pick up truck is not choosing between a F150 and an Accord. Replace utility with luxury and you get GW's own infamous metaphor. Whether you can compare GW to a Porsche with a straight face, the point remains that the Accord Coupe is not direct competition for the Carrera - even though both are small cars.

Except that analogy doesn't work. The F150 and Accord are very different in function, GW and their competition are only different in aesthetic ways. The only functional difference between 40k and X-Wing is that X-Wing's models are pre-painted, but this is a difference of negligible value (or even negative value) for most of 40k's customers. And when you compare 40k to, say, Infinity you're talking about two different brands of 28mm science fiction miniatures that are clearly in competition. To say that they aren't competing requires a definition of "competition" that results in no miniatures company being in competition with anyone else, an obviously absurd claim to make.

Except if we replace the miniatures, templates, custom dice and cards with placeholders you would still be able to tell the difference between 40k and X-Wing blindfolded. Likely most people can do that fairly readily because they are indeed different games that appeal to different people. Will some people find appeal in both? Sure, but that only translates into competition if the consumer has decided that it does by viewing both products as viable options.

At that point though, the consumer has their criterion and it's not like a company can really alter those. If those requirements happen to overlap multiple things, then yes a competition may exist but you'd have to define what they are and as mentioned, no two people will have identical whims for dictating who is and isn't in competition for their money. If I have a cap of $80 out-the-door and it can't require sharp implements nor extended assembly because I have a kid at home and that concerns me, then I'm not going to buy GW products; they don't meet my requirements. If I hate Star Wars because my witch of an ex loved it and everything she liked can shove it, then it doesn't matter how great X-Wing or FFG is, because again they don't meet my requirements. To use Manchu's analogy, if I have to have a flatbed truck to move things, then Porsche is not one of the competitors for my purchase.

Are there many for whom they will be in competition? Sure, but in the main are they in competition? You can't base it on the actual decider of the fact, because you're trying to find out who DIDN'T consider them an option to see if they're actually the majority opinion. All you can really go by is what they company is pursuing, and in that case there's not nearly the overlap.

Neronoxx wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Sure they are.

Go to the LGS, buy Dark Vengeance and the X-Wing starter. What happens next with each?

You assemble the components and have a game.

Then feel like a schmuck for buying Dark Vengeance.

Hard to have an adult conversation about the differences between two of the industries biggest games when obviously someone either is so biased they cannot understand thye appeal of half of what they are discussing, or is simply being a child. Makes it real difficult.

No, what makes it difficult is people resorting to ad homs rather than having any meaningful discussion and lacking a sense of humour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
No need to be so literal about metaphors: note how I gave examples of both "functional" and "aesthetc" (your arbitrary terms) differences, just to show how otherwise similar products are not direct competitors based on salient differences. The corresponding difference when it comes to games could be how they are marketed or it could be how they are played. X-Wing and 40k are world's apart on both counts.

But are still tabletop miniatures wargames.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Go to the LGS, buy Dark Vengeance and the X-Wing starter. What happens next with each?

You take your starter set home, assemble the components, and play a scaled-down version of the real game. The only real difference is that Dark Vengeance requires slogging through cutting a bunch of stuff off the sprue and gluing it together while X-Wing can be set up in a few minutes.

And some people enjoy that. Some people dont.

You guys are literally arguing over people's preferences. Do you realize how stupid that is?
Is X-wing an inexpensive game? Yeah, especially for miniatures.
Does Warhammer have to be expensive? No, it doesn't. No where does it say you have to play at any point level or game size.
Do people enjoy X-wing? Yes.
Do people enjoy Warhammer? Yes.
Do some people mutually enjoy both? Yes.
Do some people prefer one over the other? Yes.

Glad we got that established. Now can we please lock this thread? Nothing new has been said, and it's a pointless discussion.

 Azreal13 wrote:
But are still tabletop miniatures wargames.

Just like the 911 Carrera and the Honda Coupe are still small cars.

Three ships in x-wing make up a significant part of my force if not the whole squadron. At most $45-$60 depending on the ship.

Contrast that with a $40 box of tactical marines that doesn't even make up a tenth of what I put on the table.

Which is more bang for my buck?

Both GW and FFG are competing for the same little picture of a dead president that is nestled in my pocket. I can't buy both products with the same dollar, it has to go to one or the other.

However to put any discussion of pricing aside, I ask:

Could the removal of the licence be just simply a matter of it being time for renewal/review and Rountree asking why another company not named Games Workshop is making money from their IP instead of developing the same or similar products in house, at home, by the designers that they pay to produce such products; thereby making the money that the other company is making other than just the comparable pittance that they receive for the licensing fee?

The official statement doesn't really betray any sort of rancor between the two companies. Is it more just a matter of GW finally wising up to the fact that games using their properties should be made by GW?

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, 1st edition was by GW, then 2nd edition by Hogshead Publishing, IIRC 3rd was from FFG and was preliminary to the 40k RPG products, which went like hotcakes.
Kirby really seems to have left a lot of money on the table by not maintaining a diverse product line. I wonder if that is why we are seeing so many recent attempts at boardgames from GW?

 Manchu wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
But are still tabletop miniatures wargames.

Just like the 911 Carrera and the Honda Coupe are still small cars.

And still functionally intended for widely divergent customers and applications, unlike 40K and X Wing.

Besides, industries like the automotive or movie industries can support a much wider scope of sub niches, the tabletop wargaming market (which, optimistically, has a global market revenue of barely more than a successful blockbuster) has neither the scope nor the depth to be so diverse.

I guess it could be that GW wants to make its own RPGs, card games, and board games going forward. But I would be surprised to GW make RPGs these days much less a card game. And I don't think FFG's license prevented GW from releasing board games.

 Azreal13 wrote:
And still functionally intended for widely divergent customers and applications, unlike 40K and X Wing.

Good point!

Casting a wide net as opposed to one little hook. Not everyone wants an involved hhhobby game, but may be interested in a well designed boardgame that can be set up and played in an evening and requires less of an investment of free time to prepare.

xraytango wrote:
Could the removal of the licence be just simply a matter of it being time for renewal/review and Rountree asking why another company not named Games Workshop is making money from their IP instead of developing the same or similar products in house, at home, by the designers that they pay to produce such products; thereby making the money that the other company is making other than just the comparable pittance that they receive for the licensing fee?

The official statement doesn't really betray any sort of rancor between the two companies. Is it more just a matter of GW finally wising up to the fact that games using their properties should be made by GW?

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, 1st edition was by GW, then 2nd edition by Hogshead Publishing, IIRC 3rd was from FFG and was preliminary to the 40k RPG products, which went like hotcakes.
Kirby really seems to have left a lot of money on the table by not maintaining a diverse product line. I wonder if that is why we are seeing so many recent attempts at boardgames from GW?

A far more interesting discussion than bickering that different people like different things and thus their views are different, to be sure.

I'd love to think that Rountree realized the strategic weakness of having all their eggs in two baskets, especially when they up-ended one and dumped out a few eggs. I'd dearly hope that he has the company trying to diversify their lines and bring back all the old variety of ways to encounter their products. That'd be great, but I'm just insanely doubtful that's going to happen with Kirby in any sort of position of authority still, and Chairman is not a wholly superficial position.

Time will tell there, and it could be that FFG knows GW was working on real board games and thus RuneWars is their own shot-across-the-bow.

We have spent so much time talking about whether GW thinks of X-Wing as competition for 40k, we haven't much considered whether FFG thinks something like Execution Force is competition for something like Mansions of Madness. Here again, I think the answer is no.

Neronoxx wrote:
And some people enjoy that. Some people dont.

Yes, of course some people enjoy it. I'm one of them. But when you look at the vast number of 40k players with unpainted (and often not even fully assembled) armies who clearly don't give a about the modeling and painting part of the hobby you can't really argue that X-Wing and 40k are not competitors because X-Wing models are pre-painted. Most of GW's customers would love to have pre-painted models.

X-Wing does not really serve the market of people who want to build and paint miniatures (regardless of how well those people live up to their aspirations). Similarly, 40k does not serve those who want to avoid assembling and painting miniatures.

 Manchu wrote:
We have spent so much time talking about whether GW thinks of X-Wing as competition for 40k, we haven't much considered whether FFG thinks something like Execution Force is competition for something like Mansions of Madness. Here again, I think the answer is no.

Silver Tower and Descent would have been a better example methinks. I can see those two as competition far more readily, as their setting (generic high fantasy), player representation (you control a hero) and theme (work together to defeat the big bad before he does more bad) more readily overlap.

 Krinsath wrote:
Except if we replace the miniatures, templates, custom dice and cards with placeholders you would still be able to tell the difference between 40k and X-Wing blindfolded. Likely most people can do that fairly readily because they are indeed different games that appeal to different people. Will some people find appeal in both? Sure, but that only translates into competition if the consumer has decided that it does by viewing both products as viable options.

But the same is true about 40k and any other miniatures game. Or Infinity and any other miniatures game. Etc. Which then leads you to the absurd conclusion that no miniatures game competes with any other miniatures game. Therefore you need a much broader standard for two games being close enough to be competition.

All you can really go by is what they company is pursuing, and in that case there's not nearly the overlap.

There's plenty of overlap. FFG is pursuing most of GW's target market (everyone except the few people who really really love building their own models), the only difference is that FFG is also pursuing a lot of other people at the same time. For most of GW's target market X-Wing (and FFG's games in general) is a competing product.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
X-Wing does not really serve the market of people who want to build and paint miniatures (regardless of how well those people live up to their aspirations).

No, it doesn't, but that market is a small percentage of GW's total sales. Most 40k players don't give a about painting or building their own miniatures. GW's core market wants to play the game and treats the building and painting aspect of the hobby as a necessary chore to slog through because the places they play at require it. And for that core market X-Wing's pre-painted miniatures are a competing product. In fact, since even people who hate painting can appreciate the visual appeal of painted miniatures, pre-painted miniatures are arguably a superior product.

Krisnath - when ST came out, 3 of us spent about four hours assembling all the minis to play ... certainly didn't bother painting them first! I know from vast experience that FFG board games are component heavy but I have yet to see one that requires 12 manhours of labor to get started LOL. The reason we were so motivated to do all that came down to the brand, just like GW assumes. That is never going to generate the mass appeal of something like Arkham Horror.

And no, I don't think the vast sea of unpainted plastic is the result of people with good intentions buying more stuff than they have time to paint. I'm sure there are some people who are in that situation, but most of the people with unpainted armies simply don't want to paint their models. The guy who puts three dots of paint on each shoulder pad to comply with the letter of the law on "three-color minimum" and the guy who throws all of his unpainted models in a heap in a shoebox after every game never had any intention of painting anything or treating the models as anything other than gaming tokens. That is GW's typical customer, and they are a market for pre-painted models.

 Manchu wrote:
We have spent so much time talking about whether GW thinks of X-Wing as competition for 40k, we haven't much considered whether FFG thinks something like Execution Force is competition for something like Mansions of Madness. Here again, I think the answer is no.

I'd say not yet.

If GW continue to diversify and expand their product range, especially with the dissolution of the licence agreement possibly opening up new avenues to explore for GW themselves, and experience success, then FFG may start to look over their shoulder.

But for there to be competition, there needs to be an element of, well, competition, and I'm not sure GW are shifting enough units of Execution Force etc (especially if one were to eliminate the purchases made for models at a discount, not for the game) to trouble FFG's top lines just yet.

Nah, GW's typical customer is not someone who buys a kit specifically NOT to build and paint it. Everyone I've ever known buys these kits dreaming of cool looking units. But getting there is a tough road.

 Manchu wrote:
Nah, GW's typical customer is not someone who buys a kit specifically NOT to build and paint it. Everyone I've ever known buys these kits dreaming of cool looking units. But getting there is a tough road.

On the other hand most people I've known put zero effort into painting, minimal effort into building, and will never change this trend. A person who has a bunch of unpainted models but is slowly painting them as time permits is probably someone who wants those awesome looking models but can't get there right away. A person who never paints anything and carelessly throws their models around is someone who doesn't care about that part of the game at all and would probably be happy playing a game with cardboard tokens instead. And even many of the people who love the idea of cool looking units would enjoy pre-painted models since they get the awesome end result without having to invest the countless hours of work that they can't afford. After all, that's a significant reason for the success of X-Wing: it looks good right out of the box (and better than most 40k players can paint), but you can still paint your own models if you want.