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.

Simple poll, will Warhammer Plus succeed or fail and why?

Yeah let's predict the success of a system that has been out for less than 3 days.
Does there need to be another thread where doomsayers rant about how bad Warhammer + is and call anyone who disagrees with them GW shills?

I voted yes.

Death's Hand was awesome.
Bound for Greatness and Angels of Death were great.
Old Bale Eye was okay.

But the real reason I voted success?

My one year CAD sub was $84.

That Vindicare looks like it was worth $60 CAD to me.

On October 1, I get my $20CAD e voucher.

As far as I'm concerned, that means I got a full year of the Vault, The App and Warhammer TV for $4.00 CAD.

"worth it" in a case like this is gonna depend. I'm sure there are lots of people who don't think it is and dismiss anyone who disagrees as "GW shills" but many people likely find it to be worthwhile. I've not subbed yet, I'm waiting a week for the reviews to trickle in, and GW to sort of it's biggest problems with the service but I'll def give it a try.

If you compare it to similar services, at a similar price point, then no. I can't see how it could possibly be deemed 'worth it' right now. There simply isn't enough novel content currently. I think GW realise this too, and have provided incentives to stay subscribed outside of the bank of content they have available.

But.

It is early days. For it to become the service I'd hope we all would like it to be, it needs to be supported. It really can only grow right now. Honestly, where as I'd have to vote 'no' right at this moment, I choose to remain hopeful, and think it'd be more interesting (and telling) to have a poll like this, this time next year.

Success is relative. I think it will chug along thanks to the devoted nature of the fanbase, but it's never going to set the world ablaze. As others have said though, it's far too early to tell.

GW has a habit of constraining other formats of media by making them try and sell models; that's why the Dawn of War series died, and why every character class in the newer RPGs is a specific model GW sells, why every recent novel reads like someone tried to pour a thin layer of narrative over what's still pretty obviously just a battle report, and why the best licensed video games of recent years are the ones where the minis they represent are all out of print and there's no pressure from marketing. I fully expect this platform to be a collection of commercials that irritate viewers more than anything else.

I'm pretty happy with it so far, I've enjoyed looking through the hobby articles in white dwarf, and watching the video content already out.

I already paid for the 40k app, so this is a no brainer for me, and I'm pleasantly surprised by the quality.

Granted, it's hard to make a lasting impression until we see how the content release goes, and when we start to see some of the new shows which have been announced.

I think it will succeed no matter how bad it is.

GW really does not need to put that much effort in to keep people paying.
If it does fail, then I would be curious in how GW managed it.

 Gert wrote:
Yeah let's predict the success of a system that has been out for less than 3 days.

Streaming services tend to release with content. This one doesn't even have a day's worth of shows.

Not worth it for me at the moment. The preview animation they released was fine but not something I'd be willing to pay for if it's representative of the quality of the service as a whole. The app is still a pile of garbage so holds no value. I can get the batreps and painting videos on YT. The models are decent but I have an assassin already. GW might retail models like that at £25+ but they're not actually worth that to me so the added value there isn't a factor in getting a sub.

If they'd have had more of the animation content on day one I might have got a one-month sub but given there's about an hour of animation I just can't see the point.

Apple fox wrote:
I think it will succeed no matter how bad it is.

GW really does not need to put that much effort in to keep people paying.
If it does fail, then I would be curious in how GW managed it.

This. GW could out a dried up dog gak in a box, give it the Primaris keyword and people would buy it and defend doing so. I wasn't interested to start with then when I found out they purged the rules that aren't current from the Vault documents and only left the fluff and don't even have the 90s WDs yet my interest somehow sank even lower.

Recently I saw a post where someone said if you expect WH+ to be Warhammer Netflix you'll be disappointed, but thinking of it as an alternative to a White Dwarf subscription is more appropriate. I think that's a very fair comparison as there's a decent range of hobby-related content. The cost of the annual subscription minus gift voucher works out at under £3.50 per month, almost half the cost of WD. With the app and model on top that was low enough for me to roll the dice and try it out.

I reckon GW made a mistake by originally giving the impression that animations were the bulk of the subscription, as there aren't enough of them to justify it for most people. However for people who will use at least some of the other features there might be enough content.

I haven't voted either way yet as I'm waiting to see how much new content we get each week. Providing GW don't trickle out 1 episode at a time then it'll probably be worthwhile for me.

Apple fox wrote:
I think it will succeed no matter how bad it is.

GW really does not need to put that much effort in to keep people paying.
If it does fail, then I would be curious in how GW managed it.

I don't think you understand how expensive streaming services are to run, disney+ for example has around 94 million subs and all of the Disney content and it doesn't break even.

You have to run servers 24/7 365 a year, need to have a high enough bandwidth to meet demand, that has to be housed someplace, utilities need to be paid, you have to have staff that know how to service servers such isn't cheap.

Many company's have tried to copy Netflix, almost all have failed because they just don't have enough content to retain people.

That's the same issue GW will face.

Have you got a source for the Disney + thing?

Tepid so far. Much will depend on how frequent and constant content will be released. Quality is also a big question mark at this point. Both series do suffer from janky animation, so there is a lot of room for improvement. They do hit the nail in terms of aesthetic and atmosphere, though, so I'm still quite optimistic about the whole thing and eager to see more.

I think the whole idea of warhammer+ is utter fail



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:
Yeah let's predict the success of a system that has been out for less than 3 days.
Does there need to be another thread where doomsayers rant about how bad Warhammer + is and call anyone who disagrees with them GW shills?

Yay for excessive forum gatekeeping where said forum is already heavily over moderated with topics shut down

 Gert wrote:
Have you got a source for the Disney + thing?

So my numbers were old they've apparently passed 100million since I last looked.

The following article contains some guesswork, their also not accounting for the fact that not all subscribers are in America so you don't for example pay as much in India or poland.

But as the article mentions their paying more to make content than they are taking in from subs, a problem most similar platforms have including Netflix at some points.

https://www.businessofapps.com/data/disney-plus-statistics/

 GoldenHorde wrote:
I think the whole idea of warhammer+ is utter fail



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:
Yeah let's predict the success of a system that has been out for less than 3 days.
Does there need to be another thread where doomsayers rant about how bad Warhammer + is and call anyone who disagrees with them GW shills?

Yay for excessive forum gatekeeping where said forum is already heavily over moderated with topics shut down

Well...if you want to show level of ignorance by predicting how it ends in first day.,..be my guest. You only make yourself look silly

I'm never opposed people making fools out of themselves. Good comedy.

hobojebus wrote:

So my numbers were old they've apparently passed 100million since I last looked.

The following article contains some guesswork, their also not accounting for the fact that not all subscribers are in America so you don't for example pay as much in India or poland.

But as the article mentions their paying more to make content than they are taking in from subs, a problem most similar platforms have including Netflix at some points.

https://www.businessofapps.com/data/disney-plus-statistics/

Having read the article, thats not what it says. Disney is planning to spend $14-16 billion on streaming content by 2024, with the current spending being half of that.
Its estimated that 2021 will net $10b, on top of the $4.5b from 2020. So that cost for producing content has theoretically already been reimbursed, assuming the $10b estimate holds up.
Of course 2020/21 has obviously been a bumper period due to Covid and the numbers might drop, not significantly but a drop nonetheless.

Actually given we have multiple examples of streaming services being launched and failing it's fully possible to make comparisons and predictions.

You can look at paramount plus, they launched with no new content, their bid to draw people in was star trek discovery.

This failed badly and was so poorly received it even soured relations with Netflix their international distributor to the point they refused to buy Picard and laughed the show runners out the office when they overspent at the start of season two and tried to sell them short treks for 50 million.

Now it's being merged with another service because it never came close to being profitable.

If you have too little content people will not stay.

tneva82 wrote:

 GoldenHorde wrote:
I think the whole idea of warhammer+ is utter fail



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:
Yeah let's predict the success of a system that has been out for less than 3 days.
Does there need to be another thread where doomsayers rant about how bad Warhammer + is and call anyone who disagrees with them GW shills?

Yay for excessive forum gatekeeping where said forum is already heavily over moderated with topics shut down

Well...if you want to show level of ignorance by predicting how it ends in first day.,..be my guest. You only make yourself look silly

I'm never opposed people making fools out of themselves. Good comedy.

and if I'm right who looks silly then?

As for the "ignorance" comment, well well well.... this is certainly not "the first day".

We're already seen a lack of goodwill of GW to the community type debacles over and over.
Going after creators is already a tacit admission from GW that warhammer+ can't compete. Furthermore, GW is venturing into a realm of inexperience.

lol, their marketing team couldn't even come up with an original name for the streaming service, they just copied someone else haha yeah that gives me so much faith that they're putting a solid effort into this

Sorry, what am I exactly ignorant of again?

 Gert wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

So my numbers were old they've apparently passed 100million since I last looked.

The following article contains some guesswork, their also not accounting for the fact that not all subscribers are in America so you don't for example pay as much in India or poland.

But as the article mentions their paying more to make content than they are taking in from subs, a problem most similar platforms have including Netflix at some points.

https://www.businessofapps.com/data/disney-plus-statistics/

Having read the article, thats not what it says. Disney is planning to spend $14-16 billion on streaming content by 2024, with the current spending being half of that.
Its estimated that 2021 will net $10b, on top of the $4.5b from 2020. So that cost for producing content has theoretically already been reimbursed, assuming the $10b estimate holds up.
Of course 2020/21 has obviously been a bumper period due to Covid and the numbers might drop, not significantly but a drop nonetheless.

As I said it's assuming things incorrectly with its estimations because it's assuming all the subscribers are american, I did mention that previously.

If it spent 7 billion (being generous with the assumption) but made 4.5 billion, then as I said it's not breaking even, which at the start of a streaming service is fully expected.

Disney plus was given out free with a lot of deals for between 6-12 months so although it's got 100 million subs, they Arnt all paying subs yet, only time will tell if they can retain those people.

This is Disney with decades of movies and shows and they have not yet made a profit, warhammer plus offers far less content.

I'm really not able to judge. Personally I don't like streaming services very much and I don't even have netflix. So it was obvious to me that I wouldn't be interested in the GW service. The "free" miniature is a gimmick as far as I am concerned and I really hate subscription services for minis, because I want to be able to choose what I am getting. I thought the Vindicare was a ridiculous mini for example, and have no interest in it, so it's not really adding value to the offering to me.

The rest of the content is stuff I can easily find for free on youtube without the corporate gloss, which tends to allow for more creativity and authenticity.

That said, I'm not sure if it will succeed for fail. I'm probably not typical and many people seem to think the subscription is good value. I think the attitude that these people are idiots or lack discernment is a poor one and those of us who are not interested should not be making that argument. It's just about what people see value in or don't and there's no reason to get uptight about other people's luxury spending.

I think a lot depends on their overheads and corporate management to be honest. If they have someone who knows what they are doing keeping costs down and keeping a close eye on what impacts subscription numbers, it might work. If it's a half baked corporate daydream by someone who wishes they worked at a more exciting corporation, or who wants to put this on their CV so they can make a move into a different field, then it will probably fail.

 Gert wrote:
Yeah let's predict the success of a system that has been out for less than 3 days.
Does there need to be another thread where doomsayers rant about how bad Warhammer + is and call anyone who disagrees with them GW shills?

Coming back to this comment, it's almost like we are on a type of forum, where discussion is to be had......why are you here if you deem the entire concept inappropriate?

hobojebus wrote:
As I said it's assuming things incorrectly with its estimations because it's assuming all the subscribers are american, I did mention that previously.

It doesn't say either way, all the article discusses is how many users there are and how much money the platform is making. As a side note, these are the prices for Disney + in each country it operates in:

Pretty consistent numbers if you ask me.

Disney plus was given out free with a lot of deals for between 6-12 months so although it's got 100 million subs, they Arnt all paying subs yet, only time will tell if they can retain those people.

Considering that data from Disney is showing a continued increase in users despite there no longer being free periods, a price increase that came into effect this year in March, and the fact that services that offered free Disney + like NowTV are likely to have paid for the deal, IMO your point doesn't hold up.

This is Disney with decades of movies and shows and they have not yet made a profit, warhammer plus offers far less content.

It also costs far less to produce content, doesn't need to hire as many staff, and overall offers different content to that of Disney + (the subscriptions to the two Warhammer apps for example).
Can you also show me a product that made back all of its costs in one year?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 GoldenHorde wrote:
Coming back to this comment, it's almost like we are on a type of forum, where discussion is to be had......why are you here if you deem the entire concept inappropriate?

Almost like you didn't actually read what I wrote and made a bad assumption that has no basis in reality.

hobojebus wrote:

 Gert wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

So my numbers were old they've apparently passed 100million since I last looked.

The following article contains some guesswork, their also not accounting for the fact that not all subscribers are in America so you don't for example pay as much in India or poland.

But as the article mentions their paying more to make content than they are taking in from subs, a problem most similar platforms have including Netflix at some points.

https://www.businessofapps.com/data/disney-plus-statistics/

Having read the article, thats not what it says. Disney is planning to spend $14-16 billion on streaming content by 2024, with the current spending being half of that.
Its estimated that 2021 will net $10b, on top of the $4.5b from 2020. So that cost for producing content has theoretically already been reimbursed, assuming the $10b estimate holds up.
Of course 2020/21 has obviously been a bumper period due to Covid and the numbers might drop, not significantly but a drop nonetheless.

As I said it's assuming things incorrectly with its estimations because it's assuming all the subscribers are american, I did mention that previously.

If it spent 7 billion (being generous with the assumption) but made 4.5 billion, then as I said it's not breaking even, which at the start of a streaming service is fully expected.

Disney plus was given out free with a lot of deals for between 6-12 months so although it's got 100 million subs, they Arnt all paying subs yet, only time will tell if they can retain those people.

This is Disney with decades of movies and shows and they have not yet made a profit, warhammer plus offers far less content.

One of the biggest expense is creation of the content, and making content the audience wants. GW has a big fan base that are when it comes to streaming platforms, probably quite easy to please.
We should compare it more to something like miniwargaming I think, if they can make something work in this space GW should be able to.
Painting tutorial lasting 20 mins, not very costly for the time it takes to make.
Batreps, even if they had full campaigns probably still not even close to a TV show production time.
There big expense is the cartoons, which are coming at a much more sedate pace than Disney or Netflix.
With the minis as a big incentive, they could during a thin month drop a free mini for all subs that have been on the platform for 6 months. And then sell the mini on the store after.

Unless the GW hobby is much smaller than we expect, I just don’t see GW really stuffing it up that bad. I can’t imagine they have cost it outside the support of like 20k subs at this point. With growth as the aim.

Not much content for my first month's sub, but I can imagine my final answer being "yes"

I can see it succeeding for a year or so but it depends how consistent the content is over a year. It will never have huge budgets for animation, the hobby content will be in constant competition with youtube as will the battle reports. It whether the extras like the WD archive (which I hope gets better need some more of the older issues), app subscriptions and miniatures can carry it.

for me, i plan to sub on payday. I am already a sub to the 40K app at £3 a month, and personally find it worth it as a lookup tool (yes i have Battlescribe, no i dont find that as easy for quick reference), so getting access to the rest of it for basicaly £3 Extra is a pretty easy sell to me.

in the long run? i dont know, it depends on a lot of the future content they create or host. they could easily have some intresting GW related content, like features on GW ran tourneys, extended meta discussions with high level players, interview with design staff to big up new releases, a live Q and A session with some rules guys to generate FAQ type stuff, run an extended kill team campaign series which follows several months of gameplay, early previews of certain stuff (say, do the WH+ reveals 24hrs early), etc, etc.


obviously the animations and such will continue, but i doubt they can make enough form the 40K community to make the enterprise self-profitable on the strength of those animations alone. they'll really need to make sure they have strong secondary elements once people have watched the vids to keep the subscribers subbed, or just accept it might be non-profitable in and of itself, but it might increase the profits of the company as a whole if it keeps generating sales of plastic crack.