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.

You are surely not alone. But even so, wouldn't the distinction still make sense to you? Games that require a ton of work that you don't enjoy versus ones that don't?

 Manchu wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
I'd like to hear more on this reasoning why you feel X-Wing and 40K do not compete against each other, as I feel they do because there have been cases where I passed on 40K purchases to get X-Wing or Armada ships instead.

Sure, let me ask you, have you ever passed up buying a video game to get X-Wing or Armada ships? I have. How any of us define our discretionary spending budget, so to speak, is not the issue.

You're changing the scope of "competition" from "everything you might spend money on" to "things that are so close to 40K that essentially it can only be 40K" as the discussion suits you.

It has ceased to be worthwhile discussing this.

 Azreal13 wrote:
It has ceased to be worthwhile discussing this.

And yet you persist. And moreover, you keep foisting this false dichotomy on me, whereby I must either agree with you and equate the 40k and X-Wing product lines for marketing purposes or else I must be claiming something totally absurd, like that no game competes with any other game. I refuse to take either position and those certainly aren't the only two possibilities. Stormonu specific example was that he had spent money on X rather than Y so therfore X competes with Y. So I pointed out how his conclusion does not necessarily follow from his premise. If you don't want to discuss it with us further, then don't.

Lets just say they all fit into the realm of "miniatures wargaming", and call it good. Neither Xwing nor Armada are "collectible miniatures games" as they are not randomized with chase figures like Star Wars from Wizards, or Clix games- they are bought like a unit of Space Marines, with the same end goal out of the box, assemblage and painting be damned. And the large scale/table is not a good argument as a defining factor, as Armada uses a 3x6 table as a standard battlefield, as well as Epic X-Wing (and in both cases, an even more standard wargaming 4x6 is even better).

Plus most would agree that the old Rackham's At-43 and Confrontation Age of Ragnorok are/were true minis wargames, even though they were prepainted, because they played just like the "individually based but functioning as part of a loose squad on an open board full of terrain" mechanics of a game of 40k, or Warmachine, rather than tied to a board, like Dust, Imperial Assault, or the like, which feel more like boardgames because of that surface. Battlefleet Gothic would not immediately fall in the category with Clix games if it had been prepainted but with everything else being the same. Hell, if it were prepainted, I'll bet GW fans would be defending it as a true miniatures wargame like 40k, similar to the defenders of X-Wing doing the same.

I would probably best place both FFG space games (especially Armada) as "Fleet-scale games", in competition with Battlefleet Gothic, Firestorm Armada, Uncharted Seas, Dystopian Wars, and Dropfleet. X-Wing probably would be more in conflict with the skirmish-level games out there, though, as at it's base level, you are operating a small squad of individuals as the entire force.

Cannot recall if it happened here on Dakka Dakka but I definitely remember reading if not also participating in debates about whether X-Wing is a "miniatures game." I am sure this came up on BGG at least. Oh and don't forget that FFG also published DUST Warfare the miniatures wargame version of DUST Tactics, the miniatures board game. Good point about the "skirmish" scale, too.

I think in the same vein of this discussion, Runewars has an interesting chance, as it really only has Kings of War as direct competition for that style of wargame (Napoleonic-style Blocks).

Mantic's cleverer by half; you'll be able to use your RuneWars minis to play KoW if you put them on the proper base sizes.

Welp... I just found out about this a couple days ago. Conquest is the first and only card game I have actually gotten into, and now its going to die way before I wanted it to. Shame.

edit: never mind. Too tired to post coherently.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I take FFG and GW as rivals based on the fact that

a) it's obvious
b) every single X Wing player I know is (or more commonly, was) a 40K player.

You can't spend the same money twice, if you are a tabletop wargamer, GW or FFG (or PP, or Steam Forged, or CB) is a choice, ergo they are competing. The level of crossover is significant, the amount of niche within niche within niche (i.e. "will only game with Space Marines") is not.

I know a number of x-wing players who have never touched wargaming, 40k or otherwise.

There is undoubtedly some crossover, they will satisfy the same 'itch' for some, but not for all. Think the truth probably falls somewhere between Manchu and Peregrine/Azael's arguments.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
I'd like to hear more on this reasoning why you feel X-Wing and 40K do not compete against each other, as I feel they do because there have been cases where I passed on 40K purchases to get X-Wing or Armada ships instead.

Sure, let me ask you, have you ever passed up buying a video game to get X-Wing or Armada ships? I have. How any of us define our discretionary spending budget, so to speak, is not the issue.

You're changing the scope of "competition" from "everything you might spend money on" to "things that are so close to 40K that essentially it can only be 40K" as the discussion suits you.

It has ceased to be worthwhile discussing this.

One more try..

I not sure you're understanding the actual topic and are seeking to define it at the retail level. At the retail level, competition for any given consumer IS anything that they might want to spend money on because, again, money for a specific consumer at a specific point in time is finite. At this level, every non-essential item is in competition for the money in that consumer's pocket. If I decide I want to spend that non-essential money on repainting my house or fixing the air conditioning in my car, that money is no longer available for gaming. I don't think anyone in their right mind would suggest that GW/FFG is in competition with a car mechanic or the paint department at a hardware store, but if one defines competition by "where is the money in the person's pocket going" that would be exactly what's going on. Hence, that's a rather useless way of defining competition and I don't think there's any disagreement on that point. In the interest of fairness, describing 40k as "a game of heroic-scale 28mm sci-fi miniatures produced by Citadel Miniatures that takes place in the setting defined by Games Workshop" is conversely too narrow to be of value, even if individual consumer choices are at times exactly that narrow (see also: my earlier Armada example).

Competition at the market level is, again, when you do not buy A because you have B. Another example with video games: Bungie's Destiny and EA's FIFA <insert year> are not in competition with one another. They are both video games, they are both on the same platforms and they are both looking for customers in, by definition, identical market segments (people who own that gaming console). However, I'd find it hard to believe that anyone has bought Destiny and said "Well then, I don't need to buy FIFA anymore; my desire to play video football is completely satisfied by this MMO first-person shooter." That simply doesn't make any sort of sense. Might the consumer have said "because I bought Destiny I no longer have the fiscal resources to buy FIFA and thus do not presently own it"? Well, probably still no because next to nobody talks like that but the idea therein is probably quite common. Once again though, that consumer need has gone unfulfilled and until it has been sated, the likelihood remains high that they will purchase the product at some point if they in that company's target demographic.

Switching back to this market, why did GW go after Chapterhouse? Because they saw them as competition. You could go to the CHS site, buy a product and then have no need for the GW one. Ditto every shoulder pad maker that GW was eyeing after they had finished with CHS. That is a competitor, and one that GW foolishly thought they could knock out with ease and we all know how that turned out for them. Still, you see the action there is very aggressive well past the point of stupidity. None of that is really manifest here, especially if you look at the other products for sale from FFG during the term of the license and think about the timings involved.

Is X-Wing gaining ground whilst 40k is losing it in terms of what people are seeing in stores? Sure, but that's not competition so much as people realizing that they weren't really GW customers; they were buying the models for reasons that had nothing to do with what GW was selling the product for (likely most common reason IMO: "it's what the people at the store I go to play"). GW sells a product for the person who wants to build, assemble, paint and game with a fairly large model-count army in GW's setting on the tabletop. As Peregrine has pointed out at length, that's not what many people actually LIKE to do. This has been my general experience as well, and is a fairly clear sign that the consumers in question are buying the wrong product for their interests and that X-Wing is a product that they actually want to buy. In those cases that's correction, not competition.

Now, GW may not like it when they discover their customer base (and thus income) is dramatically smaller than they thought it was because of the "not really into it" bubble, but that's GW's problem to deal with.

If X-Wing is not a competitor to 40K, then why all the crying when I convinced the kid to get the core X-Wing game?

Surely, the mom will come to her senses and sort out her market categories and realize that she can afford for her kid to play both.

Because one is a wargame and the other is merely a collectible miniatures game, surely she has separate budget for two such disparate entities.

Mitochondria wrote:
If X-Wing is not a competitor to 40K, then why all the crying when I convinced the kid to get the core X-Wing game?

Surely, the mom will come to her senses and sort out her market categories and realize that she can afford for her kid to play both.

Because one is a wargame and the other is merely a collectible miniatures game, surely she has separate budget for two such disparate entities.

That's actually an excellent point. Have an exalt!

It simply illustrates the missing of the point. In a retail setting they compete because everything at retail competes with everything, including products at other wholly unrelated markets/vendors. This is not a helpful viewpoint for the discussion.

In a corporate viewpoint they do not compete because the product is different. If I make a product that requires X and you do not like X, then I do not make a product for you regardless of whether you buy it or not. If the primary reason you like a different product is the lack of X, then I am not competing for your business as my product requires that you can at least tolerate X. If you previously bought my product because it was the only one on offer in this field, but you never liked X and as soon as an option that met your other needs but didn't require X appeared you switch to that, I am not nor was I ever actually competing for your business; you purchased it before due to some external factor (i.e. - default) which implies there was no actual choice by the consumer.

Competition requires choice, which in turn requires equivalence between the products as another word for "A does what B does for me" and yes, there is certainly wiggle room there with the subjective portion where opinions on what competes differ, sometimes transaction-to-transaction. In the given situation, the mother lacked any notions of what she wanted which brought more options into play. Someone with an established interests would differ utterly and completely from that perspective up to and including "there is no competition because I want only this item". Nuance matters, which is why all generalizations are bad. (yes that's partly a joke for the painfully oblivious)

However, the retail perspective, for the purposes of discussing why GW might have declined to continue the license, is almost irrelevant. By the time the product is sitting on the shelf both companies have gotten what they wanted out of it. X-Wing was available for years, Dust was available for years, and all the while FFG held the license. Ergo, the evidence is just as strong that GW didn't really care about FFG selling miniatures so long as the experience (i.e. - fulfillment of consumer need) those miniatures offered didn't compete directly with their own. They don't care if they don't make EVERY sale at the store, otherwise they'd be taking a run at WotC. They just want to capture the sales at that store that are going to their customer demographic. The rude surprise I imagine is waiting for GW is how many people in the market are not actually their "customers," but still bought their stuff. That's unrelated to the license though.

A interesting point there is that after they left FFG, Dust began selling unassembled kits. FFG did not ever sell them to my knowledge, and it's a plausible theory that such sales likely wouldhave crossed the line with GW as providing a functionally equivalent experience to the consumer (as is evidenced by my intent to use of some as 40k tanks). However, it could be entirely coincidence and it's just Dust trying desperately to sell more product (at the same price with less labor cost) as well though.

Beautiful and well said post Krinsath. I just have one little rebuttal.

Krinsath wrote:
Is X-Wing gaining ground whilst 40k is losing it in terms of what people are seeing in stores? Sure, but that's not competition so much as people realizing that they weren't really GW customers; they were buying the models for reasons that had nothing to do with what GW was selling the product for (likely most common reason IMO: "it's what the people at the store I go to play").

Could it be said people left GW and bough X-Wing because of Clear, Concise, Well Written Rules, very well BALANCED and easy to learn that they stopped playing GW games? A lot of GW customers left GW because of the rules and balance among other reasons. So again it's competition. The competition might not be miniatures but a rule set as well. Since GW sells rule sets, there is the competition as well. Not the "hobby" part but the gaming part. Even though they have LOVED the minis and the fluff, they just can't take how GW makes rules now and went onto "greener pastures" as they see fit.

----------------------------

While GW might be a "miniature" company they are also a rules and gaming company as well as much as they don't like to admit it or not, and that is where the competition lies in as well. There is just too many parts in the hobby that can say it's only one thing.

It can be said GW is in competition and yet not in competition with other companies. GW is in competition with other companies who make miniatures. GW is in competition with other companies who make game rule sets. GW is in competition with other companies with people who just like to model. GW is in competition with companies who like all the combined.

GW is not in competition with Pokemon since you can't buy miniatures and assemble them (that I know of) together. GW is not in competition with video games since they don't make them. GW is not in competition with scuba diving or gold or what ever else since they are totally different things, but yet, they are in competition since people only have a finite of money. While there are people who have lots of money they can golf, scuba dive play GW games and a bunch of whole others. Thing is their money is still as finite as other a poor person they just have more of it. So it's easier for them to spread that spare money around. They can buy A, B and C and what else at the same time.

For others who don't have as much finite money it's usually A or B at the time. So when it comes to finding what is "value" for that person they have to choose one or the other. That is where they are in competition with GW. Is the person going to save money for Scuba diving or for golf or for GW or any other game in the "hobby"? If so, why are they doing it. That is where GW needs to start doing their "market research" with they so boldly claim they don't do. Maybe they have, but so far from the smoke and mirrors, it's still the same old GW and not much really has changed.

I guess 40 8th edition will tell us if GW has changed or not. But that is a years away.

I'd bet money that GW is going to re-release their old games, but just make them in-house.

They have plenty of manufacturing capability to do so, which is why I'm, surprised they licensed all those games out in the first place.

 mechanicalhorizon wrote:
I'd bet money that GW is going to re-release their old games, but just make them in-house.

They have plenty of manufacturing capability to do so, which is why I'm, surprised they licensed all those games out in the first place.

While they can manufacture to do so, do you have faith they can put out the quality that FFG did?

All I can see now if you want to Role Play in 40K universe is roll randomly what you are going to play then randomly roll a name, and randomly roll your stats, and then play the game with more random rules. In other words I have no faith in Mr Cruddace and J Jervice (forgot his first name) and company or the GW Design Team now in making rules. I feel sorry for the people who role play 40K or any GW game now. GW creativity is very lacking. Just look at Traitors Hate and Angles Blade not really screaming, "we have changed and know how to write rules now."

There is a reason why people said GW stick to miniatures and let FFG write the rules for 40K game.

J Jervice? You mean Jervis Johnson?

 BrookM wrote:
J Jervice? You mean Jervis Johnson?

Yes, I missed the auto correct on the third time trying to fix the name. Wouldn't let me spell Jervis for what reason. . Argh hate auto correct sometimes.

Manchu wrote:

Mario wrote:
Runewars could be a result of FFG seeing the end of their licensing deal and thinking they could grab a chunk of that market once the license (with its restrictions) is gone.

Along the lines MGS mentioned above, I don't think the GW license figures quite so prominently in FFG's plans as it does in the minds of your typical Dakka Dakka posters. RuneWars is big news because it indicates FFG has the capital, expertise, and market position to launch a miniatures game using an in-house IP.

I agree, the GW IP FFG used were quite diverse and profitable (why else keep making stuff) but the loss might hurt but it won't break them. I think RuneWars could be a result of them seeing the GW licensing deal could be in trouble and then preparing to get into that niche (meaning: wargame with assembly and painting) because it's a niche where they have no game but were not allowed to make something under the licensing terms. It's just a regular market expansion that they can do now (without angering a partner). Why would they not try it with one of their own IPs? They could lose Star Wars at some point but nobody can take away RuneWars (and it's fantasy as opposed to sci-fi/sci-fantasy ship combat). The diversity is good for them.

mechanicalhorizon wrote:I'd bet money that GW is going to re-release their old games, but just make them in-house.

They have plenty of manufacturing capability to do so, which is why I'm, surprised they licensed all those games out in the first place.

It looked like GW wanted to focus on their main games and that's why they licensed out everything else (kinda from the point when they shuttled everything off to Specialst Games in the first place). Some of these specialist games will be released by Forge World and who knows what else will follow. But FFG also had a license to make new games based on the GW IP, as long as these were not too tabletop wargame-y. I don't think GW would get access to these games (made by FFG) when the licensing deal expires. And GW is still missing traditional boardgames where you buy a box and instantly get to play the game. I think they'll want/need to expand in that market and actually make a game that could be sold in a regular toy store (something where you don't need to use an x-acto knife before you play).

X-Wing vs 40k...

Small plastic toy soldiers/vehicles, with made up numerical stat lines, that we move around a decorated table top, roll dice to simulate combat and say pew pew.

Sounds pretty similar to me.

Someone said GW plan to re-release the specialist games. Did they ever make a 40k based pen and paper RPG? I thought GW were still having books printed in China and not in house. Do they have a UK print publisher?

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Someone said GW plan to re-release the specialist games. Did they ever make a 40k based pen and paper RPG? I thought GW were still having books printed in China and not in house. Do they have a UK print publisher?

Blood Bowl is already on the way. Hopefully Battlefleet Gothic won't be too far behind. Inquisitor could be played as a RPG.

Davor wrote:
Could it be said people weft GW and bough X-Wing because of Clear, Concise, Well Written Rules, very well BALANCED and easy to learn that they stopped playing GW games? A lot of GW customers left GW because of the rules and balance among other reasons. So again it's competition. The competition might not be miniatures but a rule set as well. Since GW sells rule sets, there is the competition as well. Not the "hobby" part but the gaming part. Even though they have LOVED the minis and the fluff, they just can't take how GW makes rules now and went onto "greener pastures" as they see fit.

Could rules quality be a priority for the customer that influences their decision? Certainly and I would be shocked to find out that it wasn't.

Why that really doesn't matter for the topic goes back to the perspective under discussion which is GW's somewhat bizarre view of the market and itself; GW doesn't care that the rules quality is viewed as comparatively bad (and not just when compared to FFG mind you; I'm not sure I've ever heard a ruleset characterized as being worse than a GW ruleset honestly). This is evidenced by the decades of inconsistency and the manner in which rules are typically written to ensure sales of the newest releases, which can be generally seen through GW's history though exceptions do exist. The rules further can be shown from GW's own statements and the testimony of former designers to be an afterthought in terms of balance. They are means to sell models in the corporate vision and nothing more. Their envisioned core customer likes having rules but it's not a pressing concern for them. The customer would rather forge a narrative than have everything proscribed for them after all.

Stepping aside from that perspective briefly, going to GW for quality rules has long been akin to someone who is very health-conscious eating at McDonald's; it probably happens at times, but the consumer clearly has a fundamental misunderstanding of what they're doing or, more likely, has no real practical choice in the matter. GW is not pursuing that group of people who prize concise and balanced rules much like if you hate dealing with lots of chits and cards on the table FFG just nods your way politely and moves along without another word. There are certain core traits to the business that aren't going to change overnight; GW's priority is selling miniatures, FFG love having tons of things on the table and McDonald's wants to kill their customers one meal at a time. That's basically who these companies are at this point.

Is leaving the rules and by extension organized play to largely wither a particularly bright idea? I would say "probably not" but I've said that about lots of GW's plans for the past few years. Again, fixating on your ideal customer and ignoring others regardless of the potential profit is quite literally out of the Apple playbook and it's hard to say that Apple hasn't been successful with it. Somehow I don't see GW's foray into it being quite as successful, but it's not hard to see they are following a path there.

FFG and GW competes for my time and money, at the very least. I used to play social games of only White-Wolf rpgs or GW Warhammer, Warmachine, Mordheim or 40k. Aftertime, I lost most of my group of wargame and rpg players, and didn't really find a good match since. Boardgames are in tho, so I'm sure going to prefer to spend my monthly gaming budget on games that are going to be played. GW got my money for the first time last month in over a year, since many showed interest for Silver Tower (I have to mention, while it is well received, it still remains a very badly designed ruleset ) Before that, money that would've gone unto expanding my Nids or DA was allocated to the Netrunner LCG, which provides me with the best gaming experience I've had since the early days of Legend of the Five Rings. Which FFG is going to reboot next year.

GW used to get the victor's share of my gaming money. My gaming budget has grown with the years, and yet I spend fewer dollars on GW than I ever did. Now those funds are secured by FFG, who has recently announced it would continue to bless me with yet more opportunity to give them my cash as they develop the the Android IP with New Angeles and "reboot" the Cthulhu LCG with Arkham Horror.

GW and FFG are two different beasts, with different preys, but within the very same, restricted ecosystem, which may cause some degree of competition.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
X-Wing vs 40k...

Small plastic toy soldiers/vehicles, with made up numerical stat lines, that we move around a decorated table top, roll dice to simulate combat and say pew pew.

Sounds pretty similar to me.

Pretty much this ^^^ end of discussion!!!

 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.

40k, XWing & Beer

Mitochondria wrote:
If X-Wing is not a competitor to 40K, then why all the crying when I convinced the kid to get the core X-Wing game?

Surely, the mom will come to her senses and sort out her market categories and realize that she can afford for her kid to play both.

Because one is a wargame and the other is merely a collectible miniatures game, surely she has separate budget for two such disparate entities.

I mean, you could as well have recommended her to buy the kid a case of beer :p

 Gimgamgoo wrote:




Someone said GW plan to re-release the specialist games. Did they ever make a 40k based pen and paper RPG? I thought GW were still having books printed in China and not in house. Do they have a UK print publisher?

Yes, called Dark Heresy. They then licensed the rules and game to FFG.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000_Roleplay

 Monkeysloth wrote:

Yes, called Dark Heresy. They then licensed the rules and game to FFG.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000_Roleplay

That would explain why it uses that horrible d100 system.

Just for clarity because some posters seem to have missed the bus on what the competition discussion is about.

Theory offered: "GW sees X-Wing as a threat and so didn't renew the license with FFG"

Counterpoint: "GW doesn't see X-Wing as competition because the experience X-Wing offers is not what 40k offers, nor does GW have interest in making 40k different. The products were sold side-by-side for 4 years, and X-Wing's popularity has been high the entire time. Therefore that theory doesn't seem to be ironclad truth."

The conversation isn't about the view from retail where of course there are in competition just like they are with everything else including music, beer, movies, cookies and anything else non-essential spending can go towards. The conversation is about whether or not GW cares in the slightest about that, because if they were the ones who ended the license then their's is the opinion that actually mattered. They don't care about the large sums of money MTG brings in, because they don't want the customers looking for the experience a CCG provides (despite being insanely profitable). They don't care about the money video games make, even though the money for those comes out of the same portion of a consumers budget, because the person looking at those products isn't looking for the experience they offer. If one side isn't competing, how is there competition?

Now, that raises an interesting possibility as a supporting argument for the original theory: Rountree realizes how idiotic that outlook was/is and is indeed taking steps to redress that balance. However, given how GW's licensing fees and royalties are what prop up their financial report, it seems ill-advised to end it when they're going to have to incur significant expense trying to replace FFG (in lost sales) or making them in-house (in overhead). Of course, GW's has had a skewed outlook for so long and has shed so much business for no good reason that any course correction to broaden their vision of who their customers are is going to be unpleasant.