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 wrote:

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

Right there you have proved my point. If FFG didn't want your money they wouldn't be making Star Wars capital ships now. Because FFG DOES want your money they are making Star Wars capital ships. Tell me what is GW making that people want?

Who asked for Age of Sigmar? (not saying it's a bad game, just saying what people wanted at the time of the demise of Fantasy. It wasn't AoS at the time that is for sure.) People are asking for Sisters of Battle. Where are they? People are asking for clear, fair, balanced, written rules. GW is not giving people what they want, but it seems FFG is giving people what they want and are getting YOUR money while GW is not.

FFG could be like GW and just think we will buy their product, be happy and shut up and buy more. FFG knows this is not how a business works so the are GIVING people what they want and there for you are giving them your $300. Funny how you say I your next purchase "could" be GW if it has "value". Funny FFG is giving you value because you are getting what you want. GW is not giving you value so you MAY buy them on your next purchase.

Again to me that sounds like competition. GW is just too stupid to give you what you want, that is all.

Your Sisters example is near and dear to my heart. But keep in mind that no one is really arguing that GW is as competent or savvy as FFG (however - people have been asking for the Xg-1 for years, too). Moreover, no game company simply "gives the people what they want;" a lot of money and effort is spent instead on making the people want what the companies give.

 Manchu wrote:
a lot of money and effort is spent instead on making the people want what the companies give.

This is otiose in a niche.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
This is otiose in a niche.

TBF GW does marketing ... just not market research LOLOLOL.

 Manchu wrote:
Your Sisters example is near and dear to my heart. But keep in mind that no one is really arguing that GW is as competent or savvy as FFG (however - people have been asking for the Xg-1 for years, too). Moreover, no game company simply "gives the people what they want;" a lot of money and effort is spent instead on making the people want what the companies give.

It's also not about what people are asking for, but what they might realistically buy. There's a big difference.

Davor wrote:

Right there you have proved my point. If FFG didn't want your money they wouldn't be making Star Wars capital ships now. Because FFG DOES want your money they are making Star Wars capital ships. Tell me what is GW making that people want?

Who asked for Age of Sigmar? (not saying it's a bad game, just saying what people wanted at the time of the demise of Fantasy. It wasn't AoS at the time that is for sure.) People are asking for Sisters of Battle. Where are they? People are asking for clear, fair, balanced, written rules. GW is not giving people what they want, but it seems FFG is giving people what they want and are getting YOUR money while GW is not.

FFG could be like GW and just think we will buy their product, be happy and shut up and buy more. FFG knows this is not how a business works so the are GIVING people what they want and there for you are giving them your $300. Funny how you say I your next purchase "could" be GW if it has "value". Funny FFG is giving you value because you are getting what you want. GW is not giving you value so you MAY buy them on your next purchase.

Again to me that sounds like competition. GW is just too stupid to give you what you want, that is all.

I think you misunderstand the word "value" there. Value is of course a measure of what something costs to what I feel I gain, which is a completely subjective measure. Monetary cost plays a major factor in the equation, sure, but it's not the ONLY factor. I buy Kingdom Death stuff nearly as fast as my wallet can hit the screen, and they are no cheaper than GW per character model. I have an Imperial Guard force on the table at the moment where the infantry are entirely Victoria Miniatures, who clock in at $5 a trooper versus GW's $2.90. The transports used for that force ring up at $45 a piece compared to GW's $37.25. Price is not the deciding factor above all else; suitability for the consumer need I have at the time is. Kingdom Death is a wonderful setting that I highly enjoy, thus price is irrelevant because I want the Kingdom Death thing. Victoria made a model range that I greatly enjoyed and I wanted, price doesn't matter because I wanted *that* thing.

When something is in competition, you do not buy A because you already have B. I did not buy Dungeon Saga because I already had Descent. I did not get into Attack Wing because I already had X-Wing (and it's better in all aspects IMO *cough*). I did not get further into Imperial Assault because I already had Descent in an odd bit of internal competition; very different settings but my consumer needs viewed them as interchangeable. When I look at the things that GW makes that I do not own, the reason I don't own them isn't because "someone else does it cheaper and/or better" (i.e. - competition), it's because I don't want those things.

Are GW and FFG in competition for a specific transaction? Sure; money at a given point is finite as said. The purchase of today does not forbid the purchase of tomorrow, and any luxury good company (which all gaming companies are) has built into their business model that a customer may not be able to buy things immediately. I had intended to buy more West Germans for Team Yankee in August, then Death Masque came out and jumped higher in the list. For the money that was available in August, Battlefront and GW duelled it out so taking that incredibly myopic, transactional view, yes, GW and Battlefront were competitors. Except the consumer actually just decided to defer the purchase until Late September, when the purchase is going to be those West Germans and presently no other vendor offers the desired 15mm WW3 kits. GW and Battlefront are not actually competing for me as a customer; I buy from both when I decide to do so.

The purchase of today does not forbid the purchase of tomorrow,

This is a fundamental misunderstanding. It isn't about the purchase tomorrow, it's about all the purchases you didn't make today.

Tomorrow is a whole separate competition, which may generate a different winner, or the same one. When all the tomorrow's generate the same winner, or at least the majority of the time, that's when one producer starts to do better than its competitors.

 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.

Oh come off it, you're just trolling now.

The argument that X-Wing and 40K aren't competing because X-Wing isn't 40K is farcical, and obviously so; they're sold in the same stores, there's significant crossover of fanbase with the two IPs and plenty of people who can afford both play both which proves so(and what do you call it when a person who can't afford both has to choose between the two...?).

New wargamers making their first purchases and fans of both IPs isn't everybody, but to pretend they're so insignificant as to make the competition between X-Wing & 40K equivalent to that between X-Wing and beer, on the basis of semantic pin-dancing? That's a joke man. And not a funny one either, a Dad joke. A really bad, cringy Dad joke that gets told and then hangs around in the apalled silence of the audience like a bad fart in a lift.

Out of interest Manchu, what games would you actually consider competition for 40k?

What strikes me as cringey and farcical is equating 40k and X-Wing by claiming they are in direct competition (or in order to do so) because their is some market overlap - and then pretending the same market overlap doesn't also exist within a given publishers' own lines.

I do think Azrael13 has a point about selling product today as opposed to any given day - but it's tricky because none of the lines in question are really a matter of one and done purchasing, unlike ... well, I was about to say board games but even board games generate ongoing product lines these days.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Out of interest Manchu, what games would you actually consider competition for 40k?

I think Warpath is the main one (just as Kings of War was in direct competition with WHFB). Dakka Dakka's own Maelstrom's Edge is clearly a direct competitor for 40k. I'm glad you asked because this false dichotomy, either all miniatures games are in direct competition or none of them are, keeps popping up. I think Age of Sigmar is actually also a competitor with 40k, certainly more so than a product line almost wholly unlike 40k, such as X-Wing. When it comes to direct competition, we are looking for "Coralla versus Accord" type comparisons (as opposed to motorcycle versus pick up truck).

 Manchu wrote:
Additionally, the ICv2 survey has created the false impression that X-Wing and 40k are direct competitors.

No it didn't, the ICv2 survey has absolutely nothing to do with it.

40K and X-wing are both miniature wargames and therefore are, generally speaking, attractive to the same customers. It is theoretically possible that people who play X-wing have absolutely no interest in 40k and vice versa but that is at odds with what I have seen.

At the end of the day it is immaterial if FFG's games fit some arbitrary criteria of direct competition for GW's games, the significant and growing presence of FFG's products in the wargaming arena means that they are a very real threat to GW's current position.

40K and X-wing are both miniature wargames and therefore are, generally speaking, attractive to the same customers. It is theoretically possible that people who play X-wing have absolutely no interest in 40k and vice versa but that is at odds with what I have seen.

Exactly.
The idea that FFG and GW don't compete from the same general customer base ie. people interested in miniature gaming because GW's miniature games are a bit different from FFG's miniature games is like saying Pepsi and Coca Cola don't compete because they taste different and the other brand also has Lionel Messi in their adds.

 Azreal13 wrote:

The purchase of today does not forbid the purchase of tomorrow,

This is a fundamental misunderstanding. It isn't about the purchase tomorrow, it's about all the purchases you didn't make today.

Tomorrow is a whole separate competition, which may generate a different winner, or the same one. When all the tomorrow's generate the same winner, or at least the majority of the time, that's when one producer starts to do better than its competitors.

Companies do not fixate on transactions, because again there's multitudes of factors that play into that point in time that are wholly beyond their remit. As you allude to, they hone in on buying trends matched against their desired demographics. If GW is losing the battle with, for the sake of example, price-conscious UKIP members with 3 or more children, but they're not interested in those consumers, are they losing to the competition? No, because those are not customers to them but instead simply buyers. The business wisdom of ignoring a group of "buyers" is of course insanely questionable, but it's the company's prerogative to do just that. GW's corporate hero of Apple is notorious for that approach, as an example, and likely where they got the idea from.

To frame that point in a far darker context, if Drug Company X found out their Sudafed clone was less popular among illicit drug manufacturers and accounts for an X% drop in sales, are they going to go out of their way to address that? Some might, but most would decide for moral or legal reasons that it wasn't a segment they were actually interested in pursuing and the other manufacturer was welcome to them; those people brewing despair are not customers, simply buyers even if their rate of consumption is vastly higher and thus more profitable than the "desired customer" rate. Despite both companies making near-identical products and selling to the same group, there's not actually a competition occurring for the segment.

Occupying the same market space does not directly translate into being competition unless you generalize "competition" to mean "anything that requires money"; it certainly CAN because the proximity is likely to lend itself to that but there is not an ironclad 1:1 correlation between the two when you examine the market in detail. I believe that's Manchu's point in all of this and why X-Wing's relationship to 40k is unlikely to have had any bearing on the license ending (just to remind everyone that there is an actual topic being discussed).

Pepsi versus Coke is a great example of direct competition.

X-Wing versus 40k is not.

The reason is because Pepsi and Coke are market equivalents.

X-Wing and 40k are not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Krinsath wrote:
I believe that's Manchu's point in all of this and why X-Wing's relationship to 40k is unlikely to have had any bearing on the license ending (just to remind everyone that there is an actual topic being discussed).

Thanks for that. X-Wing was released in 2012. It has been popular since Day 1; it didn't suddenly explode in 2015 or 2016. And withdrawing their license from FFG will do nothing to make 40k more competitive vis-a-vis X-Wing or in any way undercut X-Wing's success specifically or FFG's success generally. If anything, GW will lose out - they will lose the licensing revenue as well as the high quality brand development FFG has provided them with over the years, to markets that GW cannot otherwise reach.

 Manchu wrote:
Pepsi versus Coke is a great example of direct competition.

X-Wing versus 40k is not.

The reason is because Pepsi and Coke are market equivalents.

X-Wing and 40k are not.

On the other hand, word from the mid ranks inside FFG is that GW had been, if not outright demanding, strongly insisting that FFG cease producing X-Wing, Armada, and Imperial Assault, because it was direct competition and violated their contract; then when Runewars was launched GW considered it the final straw and tore up the contract.

 Manchu wrote:
Pepsi versus Coke is a great example of direct competition.

X-Wing versus 40k is not.

The reason is because Pepsi and Coke are market equivalents.

X-Wing and 40k are not.

I wasn't talking about X-Wing versus 40k but FFG vs GW.

 NTRabbit wrote:
On the other hand, word from the mid ranks inside FFG is that GW had been, if not outright demanding, strongly insisting that FFG cease producing X-Wing, Armada, and Imperial Assault

It takes a lot of hatred of GW to believe this kind of rumour.

 Manchu wrote:

 NTRabbit wrote:
On the other hand, word from the mid ranks inside FFG is that GW had been, if not outright demanding, strongly insisting that FFG cease producing X-Wing, Armada, and Imperial Assault

It takes a lot of hatred of GW to believe this kind of rumour.

Is that like a self-fulfilling delusion?

 judgedoug wrote:
Is that like a self-fulfilling delusion?

According to Dakkanauts, GW has been out of business for the past decade.

 Manchu wrote:
It takes a lot of hatred of GW to believe this kind of rumour.

No, it only takes a rational reading of the events, and general situation. The manner in which FFG was forced to announce the cancellation of products that had already been developed strongly suggests the cancellation came from GWs end, and there's not all that many reasons to choose from when trying to determine their motivation. The only other option worth mentioning is that GW plans to re-release it all themselves, in some version, under a revived Specialist Games banner, but that's not a great reason to end a relationship mid contract.

 NTRabbit wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It takes a lot of hatred of GW to believe this kind of rumour.

No, it only takes a rational reading of the events

That's what you think that rumor is?

We're just going to have to agree to disagree there. The notion that GW tried to leverage its license against the Star Wars license is probably the most absurd thing I have ever read on Dakka Dakka.

 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?

Well, never forget, never forgive, when it comes to GW, right?

 Manchu wrote:
We're just going to have to agree to disagree there. The notion that GW tried to leverage its license against the Star Wars license is probably the most absurd thing I have ever read on Dakka Dakka.

Disney/Lucasfilm is about as aware of or threatened by GW as GW is of Iron Wind Metals.
I would guess a throwaway Star Wars licensed item such as a baby's sippy cup with R2D2 makes more money than GW's yearly revenue.

Krinsath wrote:
I think you misunderstand the word "value" there. Value is of course a measure of what something costs to what I feel I gain, which is a completely subjective measure. Monetary cost plays a major factor in the equation, sure, but it's not the ONLY factor. I buy Kingdom Death stuff nearly as fast as my wallet can hit the screen, and they are no cheaper than GW per character model. I have an Imperial Guard force on the table at the moment where the infantry are entirely Victoria Miniatures, who clock in at $5 a trooper versus GW's $2.90. The transports used for that force ring up at $45 a piece compared to GW's $37.25. Price is not the deciding factor above all else; suitability for the consumer need I have at the time is. Kingdom Death is a wonderful setting that I highly enjoy, thus price is irrelevant because I want the Kingdom Death thing. Victoria made a model range that I greatly enjoyed and I wanted, price doesn't matter because I wanted *that* thing.

I think we both agree what "value" is. For me "value" is if I have fun and even if I am paying more, I am still getting enjoyment out of it so there is value. Value is not just something costing cheaper.

When something is in competition, you do not buy A because you already have B. I did not buy Dungeon Saga because I already had Descent. I did not get into Attack Wing because I already had X-Wing (and it's better in all aspects IMO *cough*). I did not get further into Imperial Assault because I already had Descent in an odd bit of internal competition; very different settings but my consumer needs viewed them as interchangeable. When I look at the things that GW makes that I do not own, the reason I don't own them isn't because "someone else does it cheaper and/or better" (i.e. - competition), it's because I don't want those things.

I agree.

Are GW and FFG in comepition for a specific transaction? Sure; money at a given point is finite as said. The purchase of today does not forbid the purchase of tomorrow, and any luxury good company (which all gaming companies are) has built into their business model that a customer may not be able to buy things immediately. I had intended to buy more West Germans for Team Yankee in August, then Death Masque came out and jumped higher in the list. For the money that was available in August, Battlefront and GW duelled it out so taking that incredibly myopic, transactional view, yes, GW and Battlefront were competitors. Except the consumer actually just decided to defer the purchase until Late September, when the purchase is going to be those West Germans and presently no other vendor offers the desired 15mm WW3 kits. GW and Battlefront are not actually competing for me as a customer; I buy from both when I decide to do so.

I also agree. Thing is, what you don't buy today doesn't mean you will buy tomorrow as well. That is my point. So if you are not buying something today also doesn't mean you will buy it tomorrow. Lots of times I didn't buy GW because I found something of more "value" and when it came to buy the GW product I wanted, I still didn't buy it because I bought something else that had more value in it. Also it goes the other way around as well. Some times I bought a GW product and not something else. When it came to tomorrow, instead of buying something else I went back to GW and bought them. So in this case my finite amount of money went to GW and not the other competitor.

So when we have finite money it's either this or that, not both because we don't have the money to buy both. And once you have to or are making a choice that is when it's competition.

I agree with everything you say except the "tomorrow" part because there is A) No sale in tomorrow, only today and B) when tomorrow does come you can always change your mind and buy something else or nothing at all.

Manchu wrote: Dakka Dakka's own Maelstrom's Edge is clearly a direct competitor for 40k. I'm glad you asked because this false dichotomy, either all miniatures games are in direct competition or none of them are, keeps popping up. I think Age of Sigmar is actually also a competitor with 40k, certainly more so than a product line almost wholly unlike 40k, such as X-Wing.

It's also a false dichtonomy to claim that either a game is similar enough to be in "direct competition" wih or a "market equivalent" to another game or it might as well be a brand of beer.

 Manchu wrote:
Pepsi versus Coke is a great example of direct competition.

X-Wing versus 40k is not.

The reason is because Pepsi and Coke are market equivalents.

X-Wing and 40k are not.

It seems like the argument (as is so often the case) is mostly about people misunderstanding each others terminology.

X-wing is not as direct a competition to 40K as say Malestroms Edge since the mechanics of the game and the hobby aspect is more different. X-wing is however a lot more direct a competitor to 40K than is a brand of beer. No matter how different a product you think X-wing is to 40K; It's still a more similar product than almost anything on the market (like Most boardgames, Paint brushes, Lego sets, Printer paper, Food, Gasoline etc.)

Zywus - the beer example was in fact not a false dichotomy; the point was to show how, in the sense some folks were using the word "competition," namely from the POV of a guy who had $X to spend on his lulz during Y period, the analysis is just too broad ... my first example, which I have actually continued to use, is Settlers of Catan - again the point is to show how there's really no reason to arbitrarily choose "miniatures game" (itself a arbitrary/debatable category) as the level of analysis as opposed to something slightly more general or slightly more specific; although my preference is for more specific (because I think that is more relevant to how customers actually behave when it comes to spending a relatively large amount of disposable income).

 BrookM wrote:

 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?

Well, never forget, never forgive, when it comes to GW, right?

I've been forgiving them in leaps and bounds of late, if they can fix 40k and reduce prices via good value boxed set deals some more, I'm quite prepared to go back to a loving and sharing relationship again.

I'm also considering that they wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, if their license was being used by FFG and there was revenue being created by that, along with a certain amount of advertising for GW by dint of distribution, then they wouldn't have just chucked that all away over some perceived slight in FFG making the SW game.

They ran DUST previously and there was no sudden halt in relations, they've had other minis available in boxed games without calamity.

So, again, I strongly suggest that the parting of ways was FFG's decision and reflects nothing more than them doubling down on their more lucrative IPs. We think GW IPs are worth a lot because, posting here, we're all in that bubble, it's like the barnacle on a blue whale to the SW IP. Even the Cthulhu IP is a far stronger, far more recognizable IP.

I think this was a sad outcome, I loved the FFG RPGs, but I don't think the evil GW was responsible for it, most especially given how we were all talking about one great source of that evil, and certainly the source of much of the IP ire, leaving the building of late with a carriage clock and a handshake...

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
We think GW IPs are worth a lot because, posting here, we're all in that bubble

Agreed, this is a big POV driver ITT.

 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?

Everywhere I bring up the notion that FFG might be not renewing a licensing deal with a sci-fi space IP in lieu of another one that is 100000000000 times more popular, people treat it like it's the most far out theory you can come up with. Especially since FFG only exists in name and is under the thumb of Asmodee North America, which is the arm of a large investment firm.