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.

The Loremasters episode has a competent and engaging presenter, pretty pictures to go with the narration, good technical production, and presents the highlights of Abaddons career in chronological order. Seems fine to me.

 Gregor Samsa wrote:
One competitive advantage GW could do with lore would be to interview codex writers/designers to get an "inside look" at the ideas and themes that go into a history of how a faction/race came about. GW has access to those people more so than the average fan does. So that could be an edge there.

I'd rather see making of and behind the scenes videos as a separate series. GW should definitely do them, but I think it's better to have them separated so if you're only looking for the fictional part, you don't have to put the time into going through the real world stuff (and vice versa).

The apologetics are getting pathetic for the "Best Warhammer content ever".

Subpar content. Botched launch. Poor value.

Do you people go to a bakery and accept half baked bread?

If I keep eating half baked bread at full price ....it might be fully baked one day!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So the Lore video was a talking head for most of it?

Same as it ever was




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Why not compare W+’s first entry to Luetin’s earliest vids?

Probably because Luetin didn't make a profit of several hundred million pounds last year.

 GoldenHorde wrote:
The apologetics are getting pathetic for the "Best Warhammer content ever".

Subpar content. Botched launch. Poor value.

Do you people go to a bakery and accept half baked bread?

If I keep eating half baked bread at full price ....it might be fully baked one day!

Well clearly the bakery still needs to unlock some things on the tech tree, you know you can't just learn from other's experience. Every baker has to learn how to domesticate grass first!

 GoldenHorde wrote:
The apologetics are getting pathetic for the "Best Warhammer content ever".

Subpar content. Botched launch. Poor value.

Do you people go to a bakery and accept half baked bread?

If I keep eating half baked bread at full price ....it might be fully baked one day!

I appreciate that the content might not be what you're after.

But personally I enjoy the content and as far as value goes, I'm extremely fortunate to be in a position where I won't even notice £5 going out per month. The value is what you expect in return for what you pay.

And I'm sure if they had just 1:1 copied other presented styles, not a one of you would be here posting about them "just copying <insert youtuber name here>!", right?

Learning from others' experiences is great...except when you're actively trying to do your own thing.

I won't lie that I am a little bit disappointed in the amount of video content being uploaded each week.

This week, for example, we got a total of just under 40 minutes.

However, as that works out at less than a quid a week as I have a yearly subscription I can't really complain.

I am happy with the quality of everything so far though.

I should stop checking in weekly and maybe binge once a month.

I really enjoyed Loremasters though.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Why not compare W+’s first entry to Luetin’s earliest vids?.

Is Luetina multi million company that set up a propietary streaming service?

Pahil wrote:

 rocksville wrote:
Question for anyone with the W+ substriction: Does everything (or anything at all) has Subtitles / Captions in some kind?
I'm severely hearing impaired and relying on such things when watching something, knowing that GW tends to ignore accessibility in their videos, it would be interesting if they try better with paid content.

After having a quick look at some of the shows:

Angels of Death: yes
Hammer and Bolter: yes

Masterclass: no
Loremasters: no
Battle Report: no

Subtitles in English, German, and Spanish (although i only tested English)
Also as a note, when selecting language the selection screen gives no hint you have selected anything, but when you close the screen the subtitles are on

Thank you, just as disappointing as I thought. Settles it for me, I won't even test it in that case.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And I'm sure if they had just 1:1 copied other presented styles, not a one of you would be here posting about them "just copying <insert youtuber name here>!", right?

Probably not, since nobody here is saying GW should make a literal 1:1 copy of anything.

Learning from others' experiences is great...except when you're actively trying to do your own thing.

Luetin or any other YT Channel didn't have to make a service in the first place, nor are they restricted in what they can do by either employment laws or Covid restrictions.
WH+ might not be brilliant but you can't just say "but GW has loads of money" as justification for your arguments.

 Gert wrote:
Luetin or any other YT Channel didn't have to make a service in the first place, nor are they restricted in what they can do by either employment laws or Covid restrictions.
WH+ might not be brilliant but you can't just say "but GW has loads of money" as justification for your arguments.

Laws only apply to poor people haven't you heard

 Gert wrote:
Luetin or any other YT Channel didn't have to make a service in the first place, nor are they restricted in what they can do by either employment laws or Covid restrictions.
WH+ might not be brilliant but you can't just say "but GW has loads of money" as justification for your arguments.

The point people are getting at is that GW should be able to make stuff that is at least on par with what fan creators do on a shoestring budget.

That's always been a problem with moving from fan creations to corporate creations though. Someone with passion and talent can often outdo someone who is just doing something for a paycheck, budget or no.

 Gert wrote:
Luetin or any other YT Channel didn't have to make a service in the first place, nor are they restricted in what they can do by either employment laws or Covid restrictions.
WH+ might not be brilliant but you can't just say "but GW has loads of money" as justification for your arguments.

Laws only apply to poor people haven't you heard

 Gert wrote:
Luetin or any other YT Channel didn't have to make a service in the first place, nor are they restricted in what they can do by either employment laws or Covid restrictions.
WH+ might not be brilliant but you can't just say "but GW has loads of money" as justification for your arguments.

Gw didn't have to make a propietary server, either.

 Gert wrote:
Luetin or any other YT Channel didn't have to make a service in the first place, nor are they restricted in what they can do by either employment laws or Covid restrictions.
WH+ might not be brilliant but you can't just say "but GW has loads of money" as justification for your arguments.

No one FORCED gw to release a platform with 20 scans of white dwarf, five lore segments from preexisting books, three animations and two live videos in each category and ask for money for that.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Why not compare W+’s first entry to Luetin’s earliest vids?.

Is Luetina multi million company that set up a propietary streaming service?

No. Means also he doesn't have to worry about being profitable or paying 5 digits per episode of animation.

Cronch wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Luetin or any other YT Channel didn't have to make a service in the first place, nor are they restricted in what they can do by either employment laws or Covid restrictions.
WH+ might not be brilliant but you can't just say "but GW has loads of money" as justification for your arguments.

No one FORCED gw to release a platform with 20 scans of white dwarf, five lore segments from preexisting books, three animations and two live videos in each category and ask for money for that.

You say that, but I find the thought amusing that Warhammer+ came into being because a desperate accountant high on the latest designer drugs held the board at gunpoint with a conspicuously toy-like weapon while reading a list of perfectly reasonable demands.

 phandaal wrote:
The point people are getting at is that GW should be able to make stuff that is at least on par with what fan creators do on a shoestring budget.

It's week 3 of WH+ and there's more content on it than any single creator has done in the same timeframe with multiple different options on offer. One Loremasters a week might be bad but add on animation episodes and vault content and it's not so sparse. MWG might put out 5/6 BatReps a week but it has a fairly large team + guests and IIRC at least 4 recording studios compared to GW's one team with no guests and a single studio.
Honestly, everyone needs to stop comparing a 3-week old service with no real experience in the field to groups/people who have been doing this for years.

That's always been a problem with moving from fan creations to corporate creations though. Someone with passion and talent can often outdo someone who is just doing something for a paycheck, budget or no.

Which to me implies that the people who work at GW, and the WarCom team especially, don't actually care about the hobby which is a ludicrous statement to make.

Lord Kragan wrote:
Gw didn't have to make a propietary server, either.

Cronch wrote:
No one FORCED gw to release a platform with 20 scans of white dwarf, five lore segments from preexisting books, three animations and two live videos in each category and ask for money for that.

Please tell me which other platforms GW should use to host its shows. YouTube is worthless for them because the money comes from ad revenue which GW is flat out not going to have on its videos for very obvious reasons, not to mention the awful copyright system. Amazon Prime is a paid service that GW will see naff all money from, same with any other paid streaming service.

GW could, oh, wait till it has a library of contents built up to start asking money for it?
Or not do it at all, they don't have to dime you for homeopathic amounts of content. They want to, and clearly it's working since people are defending paying money for content you could binge while your nana is at the bingo night.

As for not comparing GW, multi-million company with it's latest project to a MWG...why? It's not some plucky startup in a garage, it's a corporation. Why should I cut slack for a corporate project?

Cronch wrote:
GW could, oh, wait till it has a library of contents built up to start asking money for it?
Or not do it at all, they don't have to dime you for homeopathic amounts of content. They want to, and clearly it's working since people are defending paying money for content you could binge while your nana is at the bingo night.

I do agree it would have been nice to see more content but you didn't answer my question, what platform do you think GW should be using if not its own?

As for not comparing GW, multi-million company with it's latest project to a MWG...why? It's not some plucky startup in a garage, it's a corporation. Why should I cut slack for a corporate project?

The company might not be but this project basically is. It doesn't matter if GW has a £200M revenue because that's not going into WH+ is it? Anyone with an ounce of project management experience will tell you that pumping loads of resources into a brand new project isn't a good idea and again, people should be waiting more than 3 weeks before tolling the bell on WH+.

I might be in minority here, but with the amount of content on all other platforms, combined with my available viewing time, this gradual release suits me just fine. As long as it is continuous.
The issue is the current state of people's expectations with online content now...they want it all, in one go, right now. Binge is the only way to watch content apparently. Personally, I don't like it, I don't need to be at the destination immediately, I'll enjoy the journey

 Gert wrote:

That's always been a problem with moving from fan creations to corporate creations though. Someone with passion and talent can often outdo someone who is just doing something for a paycheck, budget or no.

Which to me implies that the people who work at GW, and the WarCom team especially, don't actually care about the hobby which is a ludicrous statement to make.

That sure would be a ludicrous statement to make, yes. Funny enough, the statement I did make was intended to give GW the benefit of the doubt but you're too amped-up on the defense for GW to see that.

I would say that SOME people at GW don't care about the hobby as much as they care about getting paid for doing a job at a company that happens to sell miniatures. You run into that in every company. It's one of the reasons why companies often enlist their fans to help bring some of that passion back to their products.

Edit:

Honestly, everyone needs to stop comparing a 3-week old service with no real experience in the field to groups/people who have been doing this for years.

Unfortunately, that's not how things work on Planet Earth.

 Gert wrote:

Cronch wrote:
GW could, oh, wait till it has a library of contents built up to start asking money for it?
Or not do it at all, they don't have to dime you for homeopathic amounts of content. They want to, and clearly it's working since people are defending paying money for content you could binge while your nana is at the bingo night.

I do agree it would have been nice to see more content but you didn't answer my question, what platform do you think GW should be using if not its own?

As for not comparing GW, multi-million company with it's latest project to a MWG...why? It's not some plucky startup in a garage, it's a corporation. Why should I cut slack for a corporate project?

The company might not be but this project basically is. It doesn't matter if GW has a £200M revenue because that's not going into WH+ is it? Anyone with an ounce of project management experience will tell you that pumping loads of resources into a brand new project isn't a good idea and again, people should be waiting more than 3 weeks before tolling the bell on WH+.

Any multi-million company that decides to try and compete with their own fanbase at doing things and then fails to even produce content on the same level with a budget several thousand times bigger deserves to be laughed at.

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 Gert wrote:

Cronch wrote:
GW could, oh, wait till it has a library of contents built up to start asking money for it?
Or not do it at all, they don't have to dime you for homeopathic amounts of content. They want to, and clearly it's working since people are defending paying money for content you could binge while your nana is at the bingo night.

I do agree it would have been nice to see more content but you didn't answer my question, what platform do you think GW should be using if not its own?

As for not comparing GW, multi-million company with it's latest project to a MWG...why? It's not some plucky startup in a garage, it's a corporation. Why should I cut slack for a corporate project?

The company might not be but this project basically is. It doesn't matter if GW has a £200M revenue because that's not going into WH+ is it? Anyone with an ounce of project management experience will tell you that pumping loads of resources into a brand new project isn't a good idea and again, people should be waiting more than 3 weeks before tolling the bell on WH+.

Any multi-million company that decides to try and compete with their own fanbase at doing things and then fails to even produce content on the same level with a budget several thousand times bigger deserves to be laughed at.

You're lumping every piece of content that gets produced together and saying it's done by 'the fanbase' which makes the claim of a budget 'several thousand times bigger' even more outrageously stupid than it looks like on face value. Add that to lumping every Warhammer+ project together, as if they all get the same uniform resource allotment completely destroys whatever validity your point my have had.

Some projects like the one by the guy people like you ran out of 40k by sending constant death threats might have had ridiculous shoestring budgets compared to the Warhammer Animations team, but pretending like GW's battlereport team has 'a thousand times bigger budget' than MWG or TTT or TTT or and of the other big wargaming channels is stupid. Those are all reasonably sized companies/organizations in their own rights. MWG hasn't been 2 guys in their basement making wargaming videos for like a decade.

MWG has been doing what they've been doing for years. Love them or hate them they're THE pioneers in the field of video battle reports. They've spent untold amounts of money on sets, editing, cameras, workflow optimization, hosting, etc, etc, etc before you even get to them buying most of their models retail, contracting out a lot of the painting and terrain, and having their full time staff equally as involved in the hobby side of the work as the actual presentation (for the most part). They've poured effort, time, money, and expertise into their work that GW couldn't possibly match, even with an unlimited budget. Money can't buy time.

Meanwhile GW is using people they already have on staff for other stuff, using their own armies or already existing studio armies on already existing studio terrain, putting everything out on an already existing distribution platform. On the margin I would bet MWG actually has 'a thousand times bigger budget' than GW's batrep people do.

At that point it comes down to what the intent of the content is. If they intend to leverage their size to push their content into fully replace existing high quality community content, the way they've done with the animations, they can feth off, obviously. If they intend for their content to be something that can carve out it's own niche through quality presentation, then more power too them. Competition is good for the market place.

tneva82 wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Why not compare W+’s first entry to Luetin’s earliest vids?.

Is Luetina multi million company that set up a propietary streaming service?

No. Means also he doesn't have to worry about being profitable or paying 5 digits per episode of animation.

Those episodes in no way cost in the 5 digits. They wouldn't look so bad if they did.

 Gert wrote:

Cronch wrote:
GW could, oh, wait till it has a library of contents built up to start asking money for it?
Or not do it at all, they don't have to dime you for homeopathic amounts of content. They want to, and clearly it's working since people are defending paying money for content you could binge while your nana is at the bingo night.

I do agree it would have been nice to see more content but you didn't answer my question, what platform do you think GW should be using if not its own?

As for not comparing GW, multi-million company with it's latest project to a MWG...why? It's not some plucky startup in a garage, it's a corporation. Why should I cut slack for a corporate project?

The company might not be but this project basically is. It doesn't matter if GW has a £200M revenue because that's not going into WH+ is it? Anyone with an ounce of project management experience will tell you that pumping loads of resources into a brand new project isn't a good idea and again, people should be waiting more than 3 weeks before tolling the bell on WH+.

1) I do not oppose GW putting it's own things on it's own platform, charging money for it. I oppose to charging full price sub fee for what's basically no content at all. You're paying now for maybe future content you will still have to pay for when it comes cause it's a sub.
In the meantime, this stuff could go on netflix or amazon, but honestly, it belongs on Youtube in my opinion.

2)I, as a customer, do not give two bits about GW profits. I care about what kind of product I get for my money, and I will compare the product on sale to other available products. Right now, it's not coming up favorably against those products like MWG given the price. I will compare it with other products (entertainment) in the same categories because that's what they ask my money for. If this was free stuff, I'd be willing to cut the creators slack. But it's not free, is it? I am told this is stuff worth paying for, and I don't know why when similar products are available for free, at similar or higher quality.

After all, GW is not gonna give me a discount because I'm earning in eastern european potatomoney, is it, why should I give them any discount in how i treat their corporate project?

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So the Lore video was a talking head for most of it?

Same as it ever was



.

Thank you for making my day.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Wha-Mu-077 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So the Lore video was a talking head for most of it?

Same as it ever was



.

Thank you for making my day.

Mine too, thank you sir

Lord Kragan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Why not compare W+’s first entry to Luetin’s earliest vids?.

Is Luetina multi million company that set up a propietary streaming service?

No. Means also he doesn't have to worry about being profitable or paying 5 digits per episode of animation.

Those episodes in no way cost in the 5 digits. They wouldn't look so bad if they did.

A two-person crew filming a two-hour-long Q&A from fixed positions and adding a title card to the beginning costs ~$3K in the Boston area. There's no way story art, animation, and voice actors for an original production are coming in for under $10,000, never mind the cost of the team product managing it on the GW side.