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.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 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.

Exactly! FFG having licensing for GW's IP was far more a threat to GW than the other way round. GW let go of things that should never have been let go of and has missed selling a wide array of products to a significant portion of the gaming community.

GW: We'll rent you rights to our IP for $5.
FFG: Okay, no problem, see you in a couple of years.
GW: So how's it going with that licence?
FFG: Great! We managed to use it to create a wide range of products and make $200,000. We'd like to do it again, $5 gonna be alright?
GW: Um, we might want to reconsider our terms?

*Dollar amounts used for dramatic effect in order to illustrate my point.

GW won big time on the FFG license. FFG developed GW's brand across markets that GW did not reach. And, crucially, FFG's licensed products were of high quality. And FFG paid GW for this. Yes, FFG made a tidy sum doing it - but GW was not then and still isn't in a position to do the same.

I find the idea that X-Wing and 40K aren't competing for market share to be kinda silly. Of course they compete with each other. They exist in the same market space.

Davor wrote:
I thought GW wanted you to spend your X $$$ and never been seen again. So far I haven't seen that change yet.

Exactly. Initial purchase, one birthday, one Christmas. That's all they need from you. Nicer if you stay, but that's the minimum.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Oh I agree, I think GW is going to make a major faceplant because they don't take the rules/game side seriously.

Outside of 40k's lame duck ruleset, what has GW done in the past few years that makes you think they don't take the rules/game side seriously?

Dreadfleet
Betrayal At Calth (my son quit after the first game due to worthless random card draws that cost him the game and allowed me to win on the cards I drew - typical GW random)
Lost Patrol
Stormcloud Attack
Death from the Skies

Need I go on?

 Krinsath wrote:

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.

With their own hobbies I suspect people will more often buy what they want rather than simply what's the cheapest. However, the factors that go into defining "what I want" is so subjective as to be pointless for discussion.

Ah but that $300 you are dropping on Armada is not going to GW. So he is correct. There is no guarantee your next purchase will be GW since you will not see value in there by your own words so again no money going to GW. Buy it now or buy it later, that is money that is not going to GW now. GW can really on your "maybe future purchase" GW needs to make you buy now. Right now GW is not doing a good job at us buying now. Even buy your own words, you are not finding value in GW products now are are waiting to see when the "value" comes out now while you are finding "value" now in Armada since you are saying you are buying now.

To me that sounds like competition because because you are picking one over the other at this moment in time.

I find it funny you say there is nothing stopping you from buying GW next time, but yet in the same words you are using "value" to justify your argument. To me right there means there is things stopping your from your next GW purchase and again that is competition why you are not doing so.

 Manchu wrote:
GW won big time on the FFG license. FFG developed GW's brand across markets that GW did not reach. And, crucially, FFG's licensed products were of high quality. And FFG paid GW for this. Yes, FFG made a tidy sum doing it - but GW was not then and still isn't in a position to do the same.

^Basically my thought.

This separation benefits FFG more then GW. Now FFG has the extra manpower to focus on other things non-GW, like Star Wars. While GW is essentially still at the same level of manpower they were at when they started this partnership and now with more expectations than before.

 Manchu wrote:
Look at it from a salesman's POV - once you have qualified your customer, and you determine she is looking for a game she can play with miniatures she has assembled and painted herself, you aren't going to try to sell her X-Wing. Of course, if she just wants to buy a fun game, you could show her X-Wing but you could show her pretty much anything in the store. Now, let's say she wants to play a game with miniatures but is skeptical about the hobby stuff; you are not going to steer her towards 40k. Put it another way, a lot of Dakka posters who like X-Wing like it in addition to miniatures games with the hobby component. So like I said, if I spend $100 on X-Wing I can't spend that same $100 on 40k. But it has nothing to do with whether I spend another $100 on 40k.

But plenty of folk only have the first $100 to spend, so if they spend it on X-Wing...

People on enthusiast forums(and I use that term because this is in no way a wargaming-specific problem) need to stop generalising arguments that apply to them out to the customer base as a whole, because the two groups are not that alike in many ways. Income/hobby budget being a big one - a big proportion of the Dakka regulars chip in to multiple kickstarters, buy GW new releases on a regular basis, or play multiple game systems while most Joe Wargamers or Wee Timmys down at a local shop or club will play one game and buy a box or two of models a month at most.

For plenty of gamers, cost is a factor, and one every bit as important in their buying process as how cool the models look, how well the game plays, or whether or not there's a wider hobby aspect involved.

I just have to laugh at all the back and forth bickering about 'are 40k and X-wing competion?'

They may not be the same game, or quite the same style. However my young lad who goes with me to the hobby shop, used to save a few weeks and buy a box of something 40k to build and paint. Now he spends that same money on x-wing instead. I'm sure he's not the only one.

As for X-wing being prepainted and someone saying they've never seen a conversion done - that everything is stock built. Well FFGs forum has a section just for painting and modding. It's a little better than GWs forum on the same matter (oh wait...).

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/forum/500-x-wing-painting-and-modification/

I can't for one minute think GW ended the license over X-wing. It will be more down to greed. GW need more license money so they will have changed the price structure for renewal and FFG just decided it was no longer viable.

Manchu, i think you must make distinction between a hobbyist, a wargamer and a boardgamer.

A hobbyist may dislike that X-wing doesn't involve much kit building or Painting but may like the streamlined rules.
Wargamers who are more in to the rule aspect may not mind the that the mini's are pre-painted
A boardgamer may just see X-wing as a strategic with nice play pieces.

Even a card gamer may like X-wing because there is synergy with the cards you assign to your ship/pilot.

So yes IMHO X-wing does cut into the market that gw is a part of we just don't know how big that cut is

Davor wrote:

 Krinsath wrote:

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.

With their own hobbies I suspect people will more often buy what they want rather than simply what's the cheapest. However, the factors that go into defining "what I want" is so subjective as to be pointless for discussion.

Ah but that $300 you are dropping on Armada is not going to GW. So he is correct. There is no guarantee your next purchase will be GW since you will not see value in there by your own words so again no money going to GW. Buy it now or buy it later, that is money that is not going to GW now. GW can really on your "maybe future purchase" GW needs to make you buy now. Right now GW is not doing a good job at us buying now. Even buy your own words, you are not finding value in GW products now are are waiting to see when the "value" comes out now while you are finding "value" now in Armada since you are saying you are buying now.

To me that sounds like competition because because you are picking one over the other at this moment in time.

I find it funny you say there is nothing stopping you from buying GW next time, but yet in the same words you are using "value" to justify your argument. To me right there means there is things stopping your from your next GW purchase and again that is competition why you are not doing so.

GW was not in competition for that $300, as GW does not make Star Wars capital ships. As a consumer I set the terms of what would earn the company that money, and there was exactly one option that met those parameters. That would be, by definition, "no competition" since there is only one choice in the market at that point. If I had a more general requirement of "I want to buy spaceships with this money" are they in competition yet? No, because at the moment GW does not have a product that meets that requirement. It's only when I hit the broadness of "I want to buy a sci-fi game" that GW enters into the picture.

Are there people who go in with that broad of a description for their purchases? Probably at their initial entry point into the market and when they're looking to change, but it's doubtful that broadness applies to the majority of transactions. Likely many options were deemed not viable before the consumer even began shopping. At that stage there is only competition in the most general sense of the word, and the only subset of those transaction that they could do anything about are ones where a change-able item was at issue (e.g. - price). As above, if I wanted a Star Destroyer there is no path for GW to earn that money.

Also, money is a finite resource at specific points in time, but money itself is not something that is restricted; if I need more money I have numerous avenues at my disposal to acquire it. I can sell things, work more hours, find a quick side job, re-arrange spending, dip into savings, etc. My spending on Armada met a specific consumer need I had, while none of GW's offerings matched up with one at that time. The next time I go looking, they might have a product that does. At that point, I look at the money involved and decide if I have enough as-is, want to shuffle things about or just pass for now. While I'm unusually fiscally fortunate, I am not independently wealthy; I just budget properly and make money work for what I deem important. Much like there are never enough hours in the day, except for those things that you decide to make the time for.

For the actual topic, the millions of data-points on who does and doesn't have GW and FFG as competing options is mostly irrelevant. The opinion on the matter that counts is that of GW as the licensor. That the license was granted seems to strongly indicate at the time they did not view FFG as a competitor; even with GW's loony management empowering a competitor is almost never a smart business move. X-Wing has been out for 4 years and while it's possible there were no license renewals during that timeframe, if there were any that would again strongly indicate GW's views on the matter. It could still be that GW does not view FFG as a competitor at this point in time, but each company knows their future plans and that they will be in the very near future.

 Krinsath wrote:
GW was not in competition for that $300, as GW does not make Star Wars capital ships.

That logic isn't, as by that definition the only thing Armada could be in competition with is another game about SW capital ships, and you and I and everyone here know that that is an asinine argument. They are in competition with one another because they are all competing for market share.

 Peregrine wrote:

On the other hand most people I've known put zero effort into painting, minimal effort into building, and will never change this trend.

I guess this depends. Everyone in my group paints and converts to at least some degree. No grey plastic armies, though I have seen them around locally.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

But that's however not comparable to 40k or similar. Few X-wing players paint or convert their models - maybe this varies too but again, locally, I've never seen example in person.
The thing is, Star Wars visuals are designed to look good onscreen and simply do not inspire much to customising or painting. Everything is white or grey, sometimes bits of black, in extreme cases red. Massive tradition of colours and iconography does not exist. When you paint your Space Marine to something other than Ultramarine Blue, it will fit right in. When you paint your X-Wing to something other than white, it looks out-of-place. This is why Star Wars licenses will never be able to outcompete other wargaming brands like Warhammer, WM/H and so on out of the market. Sure, if the games are good (and X-Wing is) they might drain away part of the fanbase but in the end, it's not everyman's cup of tea any more than Warhammer is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

The fact that the rules are still garbage, the FAQs are full of "WTF is that" rulings, and new books aren't any better than the old ones.

I have hard time telling if you're talking about GW or FFG rulebooks.

Again, Krinsath is correct. GW offers no product reasonably comparable to X-Wing in any of its salient features. The category into which one could lump both 40k and X-Wing is necessarily broad because the games are so different. And conceiving of them as competitors is only meaningful in the sense that each also "competes" with every other game sold at the LGS (including other games made by the same companies).

@BackFire: Yes, the amount of repaint and conversion one sees in X-Wing is being massively overstated ITT for the sake of argument.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Krinsath wrote:
GW was not in competition for that $300, as GW does not make Star Wars capital ships.

That logic isn't, as by that definition the only thing Armada could be in competition with is another game about SW capital ships, and you and I and everyone here know that that is an asinine argument. They are in competition with one another because they are all competing for market share.

It's not an asinine argument if that's the logic that consumers approach a vendor with, it's the entire point. FFG and GW did not compete for that transaction despite it being a miniatures wargaming market transaction. When I wanted to buy Deathwatch miniatures, GW and FFG again did not compete. If I sat down and said "I want to invest in a new fantasy-based game" and I look into both AoS and Runewars, then yes, they are in competition and likely will not be once a decision is made as I will continue down the path chosen. At that particular juncture of consumer desire they may be in fierce competition, but on any given consumer that is a fleeting moment and may be wholly unable to be influenced by the vendor. That's why the generalization to "the market" is somewhat specious; it squeezes out all the nuance from the consumer who ultimately decides what money is going to go where. As a company those reasons that are being cast aside in the discussion of the crux of the matter; they determine what could be changed for the betterment of the bottom line and what was never going to be sale and is wasted thought to consider.

I may have missed something in the thread, but isn't the most logical conclusion that FFG is just too busy with it's more popular licenses and therefore didn't renew it's GW one?

Where are we getting the falling out/GW being a bastard theory from?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I may have missed something in the thread, but isn't the most logical conclusion that FFG is just too busy with it's more popular licenses and therefore didn't renew it's GW one?

Where are we getting the falling out/GW being a bastard theory from?

I think you are correct; FFG is moving on. But this is a 40k-centric board with a general anti-GW slant. Additionally, the ICv2 survey has created the false impression that X-Wing and 40k are direct competitors. That plays into baseless speculation that GW is somehow punishing FFG for X-Wing's success, which in turn is just an indirect way of calling GW dumb. The final piece of the puzzle is GW's recent interest in boxed games, which have no legs on the actual board game market, but are (inexplicably) being cited as competition for FFG.

 Krinsath wrote:

It's not an asinine argument if that's the logic that consumers approach a vendor with, it's the entire point. FFG and GW did not compete for that transaction despite it being a miniatures wargaming market transaction.

This brings us all the way back to the idea that GW has no competition because no-one else makes Ultramarines.
It's true to a point; if you're price elastic and you want an X-Wing miniature or an Ultramarine Captain, then there's no competition; you can buy both.
But if, like most of us, you want into the FLGS with ${pocket-money} in your hand, you can only buy ${pocket-money} worth of stuff, and you have to chose between one or the other. They are by definition competing even they they are different.

Incidentally, I don't think I've bought a single GW product since I bought X-Wing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Krinsath wrote:
GW was not in competition for that $300, as GW does not make Star Wars capital ships.

That logic isn't, as by that definition the only thing Armada could be in competition with is another game about SW capital ships, and you and I and everyone here know that that is an asinine argument. They are in competition with one another because they are all competing for market share.

No they not. GW is not competing with anyone. Just look at AOS. Totally uniqe IP, what is defendable, if they where competing with other companies, we would still have Tomb Kings and Brettonians. Also Dwarfs wouldnt be called Duardin, Elfs wouldnt be called Aelfs, Zombies wouldnt be called Deadwalkers and so on and so forth. GW is not competing with anyone.

Fury of Dracula, Forbidden Stars and Chaos in the Old World, are all trending on BoardGameGeek right now.

Fury of Dracula is currently in first place in "The Hotness" list, Forbidden Stars is number three, Chaos in the Old W. is number eight.

herjan1987 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Krinsath wrote:
GW was not in competition for that $300, as GW does not make Star Wars capital ships.

That logic isn't, as by that definition the only thing Armada could be in competition with is another game about SW capital ships, and you and I and everyone here know that that is an asinine argument. They are in competition with one another because they are all competing for market share.

No they not. GW is not competing with anyone. Just look at AOS. Totally uniqe IP, what is defendable, if they where competing with other companies, we would still have Tomb Kings and Brettonians. Also Dwarfs wouldnt be called Duardin, Elfs wouldnt be called Aelfs, Zombies wouldnt be called Deadwalkers and so on and so forth. GW is not competing with anyone.

That's funny, because I thought that they were competing with other products to get my £20 off me. Must have been wrong about that when I'm weighing up what to buy.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

herjan1987 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Krinsath wrote:
GW was not in competition for that $300, as GW does not make Star Wars capital ships.

That logic isn't, as by that definition the only thing Armada could be in competition with is another game about SW capital ships, and you and I and everyone here know that that is an asinine argument. They are in competition with one another because they are all competing for market share.

No they not. GW is not competing with anyone. Just look at AOS. Totally uniqe IP, what is defendable, if they where competing with other companies, we would still have Tomb Kings and Brettonians. Also Dwarfs wouldnt be called Duardin, Elfs wouldnt be called Aelfs, Zombies wouldnt be called Deadwalkers and so on and so forth. GW is not competing with anyone.

That's funny, because I thought that they were competing with other products to get my £20 off me. Must have been wrong about that when I'm weighing up what to buy.

If GW was a competitive company, than they wouldnt rase prices sky high. Then they wouldnt be so relaint on their own stores. They would sell other companies products in their own stores ( like they did with DnD back in the day ). There products would be more generic, not so specialised. They are not doing so.... Thats why I dont see them as a competitive company. I said this before and will say it again: they are a silver giant on clay legs.

 Manchu wrote:
And conceiving of them as competitors is only meaningful in the sense that each also "competes" with every other game sold at the LGS

You mean that crazy definition of competes which means that they are two products vying for the same money?

 frozenwastes wrote:
You mean that crazy definition of competes which means that they are two products vying for the same money?

Yep - like whether I buy a X-Wing ship or a six pack of beer.

 Zingraff wrote:
Fury of Dracula is currently in first place in "The Hotness" list, Forbidden Stars is number three, Chaos in the Old W. is number eight.

Discussing this the other day, I concluded that Fury of Dracula could be the most valuable GW licensed game FFG produced but maybe they will do another print run if there is enough demand. (I guess this is also direct competition for 40k LOL.)

herjan1987 wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

herjan1987 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Krinsath wrote:
GW was not in competition for that $300, as GW does not make Star Wars capital ships.

That logic isn't, as by that definition the only thing Armada could be in competition with is another game about SW capital ships, and you and I and everyone here know that that is an asinine argument. They are in competition with one another because they are all competing for market share.

No they not. GW is not competing with anyone. Just look at AOS. Totally uniqe IP, what is defendable, if they where competing with other companies, we would still have Tomb Kings and Brettonians. Also Dwarfs wouldnt be called Duardin, Elfs wouldnt be called Aelfs, Zombies wouldnt be called Deadwalkers and so on and so forth. GW is not competing with anyone.

That's funny, because I thought that they were competing with other products to get my £20 off me. Must have been wrong about that when I'm weighing up what to buy.

If GW was a competitive company, than they wouldnt rase prices sky high. Then they wouldnt be so relaint on their own stores. They would sell other companies products in their own stores ( like they did with DnD back in the day ). There products would be more generic, not so specialised. They are not doing so.... Thats why I dont see them as a competitive company. I said this before and will say it again: they are a silver giant on clay legs.

I'll have to remember that the next time I spend money on a competing product in the toy shop.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I may have missed something in the thread, but isn't the most logical conclusion that FFG is just too busy with it's more popular licenses and therefore didn't renew it's GW one?

Where are we getting the falling out/GW being a bastard theory from?

Perhaps even more ironic, Asmodee (who FFG has become part of) is cast as a major villain on BoardGameGeek due to their recent-ish policies.
They have/are emplacing controls on deep discount and distribution, making it harder for deep discounts on their products including FFG stuff.
This has incensed a boardgame-buying public who have gotten used to 25-40% off via online sales.
The move is ostensibly done to make LGS model of business more viable but the result is a higher price paid---at least for those who were getting their stuff at deep discount.

 Manchu wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
You mean that crazy definition of competes which means that they are two products vying for the same money?

Yep - like whether I buy a X-Wing ship or a six pack of beer.

You've walked into an FLGS, looked at the shelves, and had to decide whether to purchase the 6 pack of Schlitz on the top shelf or the TIE Interceptor on the middle shelf? That's an odd and very unique game store you have but that may explain your particular insistent position on this matter. Me personally... I've never had to make the choice at my FLGS or even online store between alcohol and a gaming product. I have, however, walked into my FLGS when I was playing X-wing a few years back thinking that I would buy a 40k box and been surprised by a restock of X-wing that came in which I bought instead. Just for the record, I did buy a bag of a small bag of Doritos and a Diet Coke at the counter but that was in addition to the gaming purchase and not ever actual competition.

I can't believe this has gone on for 4 or 5 pages. What I do for a living, and have done for the last 13 years is analyse product performance (mostly in the retail sector).

The idea that X-wing and 40k are not competing products has no merit.

 warboss wrote:
You've walked into an FLGS, looked at the shelves, and had to decide whether to purchase the 6 pack of Schlitz on the top shelf or the TIE Interceptor on the middle shelf? That's an odd and very unique game store you have but that may explain your particular insistant position on this matter.

I suppose the police escort you to the LGS and stand by the door until you spend your money there to prevent you from spending it anywhere else. That would explain your "insistant position," I guess. But even with your police escort forcing you to spend money at the LGS, I guess that means for you that Settlers of Catan is direct competition for 40k.

 Manchu wrote:

 warboss wrote:
You've walked into an FLGS, looked at the shelves, and had to decide whether to purchase the 6 pack of Schlitz on the top shelf or the TIE Interceptor on the middle shelf? That's an odd and very unique game store you have but that may explain your particular insistant position on this matter.

I suppose the police escort you to the LGS and stand by the door until you spend your money there to prevent you from spending it anywhere else. That would explain your "insistant position," I guess. But even with your police escort forcing you to spend money at the LGS, I guess that means for you that Settlers of Catan is direct competition for 40k.

Sorry I misspelled the word but thanks for pointing that out. Next time to be even clearer, you could add a [sic]. As for the police escort, your position as evidenced by your beer example is so incredibly broad that health insurance, groceries, saving for retirement, and even the IRS are competition in the same broadest possible sense. Of course, while technically true for many, the broadness of your definition makes the word competition effectively useless for a reasonable discussion. The point you seem to be missing is that most people here view "competition" as other products in the same category (miniatures games) offered in the same venue at the point of sale. When you broaded the word "competition" to include everything else in the world (like the six pack of beer you're so fond of mentioning), you're pretty much excluding any nuance from the discussion.

Misspellings are particularly grating in the context of snark. I'm glad you clued into the broadness, which was the point of the example to begin with. The reference was to disposable income/fun budget. Beer competes with games at that level, at least if we insist on this fanatical obsession with the finite nature of each dollar bill. If you only consider "games" then yes, the specific dollars in question can only be used toward either of 40k or Settlers of Catan (or XBox, unless we have drilled down to table top games). Drilling further down to "miniatures games," you might be deciding between 40k and X-Wing. But lo and behold it is actually possible to drill down more, to another extremely important level of marketing/product distinction: hobby-premised miniatures wargaming versus board game/miniatures game crossover. I'm not excluding nuance; I'm asking that it be taken into account.