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.

 Polonius wrote:
It's a really interesting phenomenon, because to keep a community engaged you need to sell them new stuff, which is easier for companies that primarily sell rules (like WOTC) vs. companies that primarily sell models.

Yea that's been my concern for GW. When do they finally run out of ideas? Seems like they're flush with them, but the release schedule is so heavy that it made people think AT and AI were dead when they didn't get timely releases.

 oni wrote:
Warmachine & Hordes = Failure!
Why? Because Privateer Press catered almost exclusively to the competitive players. Doing this narrowed the customer base, fostered an incredibly toxic community (the worst I've ever encountered) and created a barrier to entry which resulted in no new players entering the game. Rather then correct course, Privateer Press planted their feet and ultimately killed their game and their business.

There is a lesson to be learned from PP's mistakes. I hope GW payed attention because they're presently on the same course that killed Privateer Press. GW is not immune to that same fate. If new players are not continually entering the game, the game will inevitably die.

That isn't even close to what happened. Privateer Press/WMH died because they made a series of very stupid mistakes at the worst possible time including but not limited to:
- hailing a new edition as having 5 years of playtesting then launching it with broken rules
- saying the broken rules are working as intended, insulting players when they told them it was dumb then backtracking on it
- claiming all the factions are totally balanced when they weren't even close
- having a whole faction (Skorne) be nearly unplayable
- forcing the use of theme lists which lead to
- uneven release of theme lists for factions
- theme lists were incredibly restrictive
- theme lists bascially became an exercise in getting as many free models as possible
- theme lists that wrote themselves
- public playtesting was a disorganised mess
- gutting the official forums
- ending the Press Ganger programme


And they did all this RIGHT as GW launched 8th Ed. Mk,3 is actually a solid game, it's just that theme lists dragged it down and everyone hates them, but they're sticking with it. This isn't even discussing the inflated prices PP charge for models and their awful distribution outside of America. Not to mention that the higher ups of the company were/are allegedly even more incompetent than GWs, except GW is publicly traded whereas the PP management have no one to appease, so they can keep making bad mistakes and blame someone/thing else.

Now Steamforged and Guild Ball? According to SFG themselves what you posted is what killed that game. Blaming the players for your game failing like they did is never a good look but I didn't play Guild Ball so I don't know enough about it to know if it's true or not.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 oni wrote:
Warmachine & Hordes = Failure!
snip

X-Wing = Failure!

GW is somewhat unique in that very little of it's product (at least in terms of miniatures) is obsolete, while also operating successfully while keeping the full range for sale.

I play with my RTB-01's so definitely not obsolete. Just wish my Chaplain w power sword still was a legit loadout.

I still have a Techmarine from RT without a servo arm but with a tool box.

Solution:
Upon opening the tool box a servo arm reaches out to be used. Like in those Sunday morning cartoons of "Inspector Gadget."

Poll now 56% True, 44% False, and stable at that split.

Interesting result.

well,

Warminiatures blog explains,


alot , for example everybody can name around 10 or more Skaven

soldier units,


but,


its not the point, for playing Warhammer , you need also your army


and somebody to fight this battle


also, i think - the tournament is not a role playing game thing


even, knowing alot of armies, for Warhammer fantasy


you still need, your army and - it fails in this point,





Automatically Appended Next Post:

its this one

warminiatures wordpress

 Sim-Life wrote:

- forcing the use of theme lists which lead to
- uneven release of theme lists for factions
- theme lists were incredibly restrictive
- theme lists bascially became an exercise in getting as many free models as possible
- theme lists that wrote themselves

I think this regularly gets described by people online as "catering to the competitive players" - even if there isn't really anything competitive about it.
Its more like... the Dark Eldarification of people's collections backed with late 7th edition Formation Level Bonuses. You could just not have the bonuses, but then you were obviously screwed against someone who did.

I note that the title question and the question in the comment are somewhat different.

The apparent Youtube comment you based the thread upon offered that the only reason "we" do not leave in droves is due to the lore. Since you asked in black and white terms this is a false statement. Lore is important but it is not the only reason and lore itself has evolved over time. Some of those lore changes have made people quite upset.

Is the thread about GW's business practices? Your somewhat leading thread title asks if "GW succeeds in spite of itself." Also false. GW makes mistakes - every entity does. They are also a successful business that has found ways to survive and thrive.

I believe that their success can be attributed to a number of factors within their control. They do indeed have engaging lore that they maintain and evolve. They have great models. They have good, accessible rules. They engage with the community. I have made some value judgements, but it seems from their sales that enough people like the lore, models and rules. I completely accept that these may not be everybody's cup of tea. The market is not a consensus activity.

They do indeed have the advantage of momentum - you can get a game in at pretty much any FLGS or gaming community. So I do agree in a way with the Youtube commenter that today's success can be drawn in part to the work done 30 years ago. GW has not, however, sat idly on their laurels (some might have preferred that). They have maintained that momentum, admittedly with varying success, since then. They have shown that they can "murder their darlings" when required. They have pivoted production (sometimes painfully) as well as games and lore. Look at the situation 2014 to 2016 compared to now. Could it fail in the future? Sure. They will need their agility and willingness to murder their darlings in the coming decades. Time will tell.

Again, an enterprise does not have to be perfect to be successful. Risk is part of the business. Ultimately gamers will make personal decisions whether to participate with their time and money. Those who enjoy collecting, painting and playing 40K do so for their very valid individual reasons. Those who stay away also do so for their very valid personal reasons. You can't please everybody all of the time.

 jeff white wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Guys, can we please stop with the abusive spouse analogy? No matter how hard you try, it will never make sense, just like your poor examples.

Regarding that abusive spouse stuff, if it doesn't fit your experience, say so. Others seem to feel that it fits theirs... Is your intention to deny them the validity of their experiences, or simply to deny them their expression of these experiences?

"You" not liking how a toy soldier company changes their game rules, expands their setting, releases models or rises their prices is not at all comparable with an abusive relationship and you have no fething clue what you are talking about is what I'm saying. You can call it an abusive relationship, you might feel like it, but that doesn't make it true. People who use this analogy to make their opinion sound more valid should inform themselves better, instead of repeating that crap over and over again in different threads.

 insaniak wrote:

Can we just, you know... not?

It's really unfortunate that the given analogy is as pointed and eye-catching as it is, but it does shorthand the concept excellently, and the analogy is right in the OP, so of course people are going to keep bringing it up throughout the thread. I think the best way to get people off of it would be to suggest an alternative, but I can't immediately think of a less controversial analogy that pithily describes having a complex, seemingly irrational attachment to an entity that isn't treating one well.

 CEO Kasen wrote:
It's really unfortunate that the given analogy is as pointed and eye-catching as it is, but it does shorthand the concept excellently, and the analogy is right in the OP, so of course people are going to keep bringing it up throughout the thread. I think the best way to get people off of it would be to suggest an alternative, but I can't immediately think of a less controversial analogy that pithily describes having a complex, seemingly irrational attachment to an entity that isn't treating one well.

It's sort of like how saying "I got raped" is a pithy shorthand for losing a game badly, but sours really quickly if you have any experience with actual sexual assault.

GW and it's customers is not an abusive relationship. Customers are free to leave at any time, they don't live in fear, and GW doesn't demean or hurt customers. It makes products that some customers don't like for prices they find too high. That's not abuse, that's capitalisms.

If anything, I would say use the term "toxic relationship," because that's been watered down to the point of meaninglessness.

I would counter that some people feel like they can't leave(for whatever reason) so for them it does "feel" like.

Now I would also say "grow the feth up" to them but unfortunately it's nigh on impossible task.

Racerguy180 wrote:
I would counter that some people feel like they can't leave(for whatever reason) so for them it does "feel" like.

Now I would also say "grow the feth up" to them but unfortunately it's nigh on impossible task.

Then what they're describing is something more akin to compulsion or addiction, which again, not really, but we play fast and loose with psychological symptoms.

Not having the self control to not buy toys is not the same as living in fear of the person you should love the most.

Racerguy180 wrote:
I would counter that some people feel like they can't leave(for whatever reason) so for them it does "feel" like.

Now I would also say "grow the feth up" to them but unfortunately it's nigh on impossible task.

if you feel you can't leave a HOBBY you dislike then yeah "grow the feth up" is absolutely the right response. Because people with that emntality it's clear what their "End game" is, they'll sit there and play and bitch whine and mona and subtly (or overtly) suggest everyone else should play another game instead. but if no ones intreasted it's not gonna get better.

It's the gaming equivilant of saying you'll just keep shoving your dick into a pencil sharpener until you can find someone to have sex with. you could just NOT shove your dick into a pencil sharperner and I dunno... try tinder?

 Polonius wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:
It's really unfortunate that the given analogy is as pointed and eye-catching as it is, but it does shorthand the concept excellently, and the analogy is right in the OP, so of course people are going to keep bringing it up throughout the thread. I think the best way to get people off of it would be to suggest an alternative, but I can't immediately think of a less controversial analogy that pithily describes having a complex, seemingly irrational attachment to an entity that isn't treating one well.

It's sort of like how saying "I got raped" is a pithy shorthand for losing a game badly, but sours really quickly if you have any experience with actual sexual assault.

GW and it's customers is not an abusive relationship. Customers are free to leave at any time, they don't live in fear, and GW doesn't demean or hurt customers. It makes products that some customers don't like for prices they find too high. That's not abuse, that's capitalisms.

If anything, I would say use the term "toxic relationship," because that's been watered down to the point of meaninglessness.

Thank you. Yes, the analogy in the OP is extremely tasteless.

Yes and no. My assertion would be that Games Workshop "failed forward" so to speak from arguably 5th edition through 7th (and 5th was my favorite edition), but from 8th onward they succeeded due to clever business decisions.

You can't really argue that they were being carried by too big to fail momentum when by all accounts they were in a financial death spiral by the end of 7th.

 Polonius wrote:


GW and it's customers is not an abusive relationship. Customers are free to leave at any time, they don't live in fear, and GW doesn't demean or hurt customers. It makes products that some customers don't like for prices they find too high. That's not abuse, that's capitalisms.

If anything, I would say use the term "toxic relationship," because that's been watered down to the point of meaninglessness.

I agree even the original analogy is hyperbolic, but it resonated with me pretty ferociously. It's harder to give up emotional ties to 40K than it seems like it should be and giving it up for dead after over a (noncontiguous) decade of actual hobby engagement felt like ending a... Well, 'Toxic relationship.' That isn't too bad. I assume by 'meaninglessness' you mean 'noncontroversiality' rather than nonfunctionality for definitional purposes (e.g. "Mary Sue")

I think it's entirely plausible that GW is at least in part coasting on that attachment, because they sure aren't coasting on having a good, playable game.

Whether capitalism itself is abusive or not is a bit beyond the scope of this particular thread.

 CEO Kasen wrote:
I think it's entirely plausible that GW is at least in part coasting on that attachment, because they sure aren't coasting on having a good, playable game.

I'm really curious how you could even begin to quantify this opinion though. It seems like some pretty massive cognitive dissonance to try to assert that the majority of GW customers continue to play and buy 40K because they're just addicted for "reasons" and not because... they think it's fun.

GW owes a lot of its success to both its IP and the sheer momentum it has.

But neither came out of nowhere, the IP has been continuesly growing with each rulebook, codex, novel, video-game, comic and animation.

Same with momentum, GW is the largest company in the market because they build a large and interconnected system of production, logistics, stores, marketing, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
GW isn't too big to fail, GW isn't a particularly large company, and it is minuscule compared to the true too big to fail monsters of the corporate world.

But it is too big to fail quickly, and that serves as a security net that allows GW to survive mistakes that would kill their competition.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:
I think it's entirely plausible that GW is at least in part coasting on that attachment, because they sure aren't coasting on having a good, playable game.

I'm really curious how you could even begin to quantify this opinion though. It seems like some pretty massive cognitive dissonance to try to assert that the majority of GW customers continue to play and buy 40K because they're just addicted for "reasons" and not because... they think it's fun.

I'm not 100% sure you're attributing this stance to me - as it would not make sense to do so - but I wish to clarify that I claim no certainty in the percentage, or whether this is even the majority, hence my deliberate use of "At least in part" and "Entirely plausible." It is difficult to know these things for certain. Any major company likely has departments devoted to trying to figure these things out, they don't publish results so far as I'm aware, and even they don't have a perfect record. One disgruntled commenter on a board using a communications paradigm firmly in the 2000's will not a study make, nor will polling 250 of them for opinions.

I state with what little certainty I can plausibly have that I do think that 40K's popularity is self-feeding, and that they have some critical mass between a network of vast lore, media interactive and not, gaming culture, social structures and storefronts already devoted to the game keeps it afloat - and I state that because 9th edition is quite possibly the worst actual wargame I can remember ever attempting to play,* and were a game's success suddenly decided on how good the game was alone, it would tank overnight. The fact that my experiences were, with one exception, pretty awful does not make it impossible for people to have unironic fun with it, but for the sake of what shreds of faith I still have in humanity I cannot imagine that what GW is doing is the best possible approach for all involved.

*



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:

GW isn't too big to fail, GW isn't a particularly large company, and it is minuscule compared to the true too big to fail monsters of the corporate world.

But it is too big to fail quickly, and that serves as a security net that allows GW to survive mistakes that would kill their competition.

This seems like the case. They could see sales dip, then they could restructure, get a new CEO, release a new edition, claim they've 'changed,' and turn things around again. They survived 7th, and I've heard horror stories about 7th; they'd have to release multiple poorly-received editions consecutively whilst being caught on camera clubbing endangered penguins in order to actually detonate.

The stance I'm addressing is the implication that GWs popularity isn't related to the game being good and playable. The hedged bet "at least in part" is nice but ultimately irrelevant when you're making a very specific judgement on the quality of the game itself.

Either 40K is wildly popular because it is a product that the large majority of fans enjoy and find fun and engaging, or it is wildly popular for some a different reason.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

GW isn't too big to fail, GW isn't a particularly large company, and it is minuscule compared to the true too big to fail monsters of the corporate world.

But it is too big to fail quickly, and that serves as a security net that allows GW to survive mistakes that would kill their competition.

This seems like the case. They could see sales dip, then they could restructure, get a new CEO, release a new edition, claim they've 'changed,' and turn things around again. They survived 7th, and I've heard horror stories about 7th; they'd have to release multiple poorly-received editions consecutively whilst being caught on camera clubbing endangered penguins in order to actually detonate.

Put it in a different way, they are not too big to fail, but with different main games that are played by different communities and an Edition cycle that is long enough to react, they need to mess up more than 1 game and more than 1 big community to fail

GW struggled in the past, but never with all of their games at the same time because mistakes made with 1 game were not made again with the other although a similar marketing might have been planned (but also happend the other way as they got away with a mistake in 1 game, doing the same again in another game did not work out)

GW is a big company with the same problems that others have of one department not knowing what the other is going to do but the overal strategy being decided by the upper managment for all, no matter if it fits the game/community

So the only way GW can fail is the managment not getting when mistakes were made or get the wrong conclusions from their mistakes. With Edition cycles being shorter, also the time to react is and with getting more mainstream at the same time social media is getting big means much more coverage of bad decisions

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The stance I'm addressing is the implication that GWs popularity isn't related to the game being good and playable. The hedged bet "at least in part" is nice but ultimately irrelevant when you're making a very specific judgement on the quality of the game itself.

Either 40K is wildly popular because it is a product that the large majority of fans enjoy and find fun and engaging, or it is wildly popular for some a different reason.

This is a false dilemma,
It would seem from results that a majority would hold the “for some different reason” which may also be “fun” but ultimately relies on (perhaps deeply emotional, hence the “toxic” “abusive” relationship language) attachments to interesting things created perhaps thirty or more years ago, and this reason is maintained in spite of recent movements perhaps including this edition of the rules and supporting print product cycle.

or it might just be it's wildly popular despite what the people on dakkadakka think. we are NOT a accurate sample.

Like me a lot of GW's customers are painters and modellers who don't play, but might still buy army books etc for the lore. The quality of the game itself is irrelevant to such customers. Saying 'these games are bad therefore the fanbase remains only out of inertia/compulsion' would seem to miss a lot of the reasons people are actually here.

GW sells miniatures first, that's their main product and appeal. Most of their customers are in it for the miniatures, the game is a secondary consideration both for the company and its customers.

Now if the game was better, and less cynical in its rapid replacement of books, would some of those people start playing? Yes. At least, I would be tempted. But the game can continue to be terrible forever and I will still buy plenty of models.

Tyel wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

- forcing the use of theme lists which lead to
- uneven release of theme lists for factions
- theme lists were incredibly restrictive
- theme lists bascially became an exercise in getting as many free models as possible
- theme lists that wrote themselves

I think this regularly gets described by people online as "catering to the competitive players" - even if there isn't really anything competitive about it.
Its more like... the Dark Eldarification of people's collections backed with late 7th edition Formation Level Bonuses. You could just not have the bonuses, but then you were obviously screwed against someone who did.

I don't think it catered to anyone honestly. The Irish Warmahordes scene was basically 100% competitive players and now you can count the players in the country on one hand.

I am unsure, i think both elements of being to big to fail and yet still smart buissness apply.

40k has kinda lowered its stranglehold during 6th and 7th locally due to becoming worse as a game.

Otoh, it bounced back well with 8th and 9th but not completely.

However it is still the game. And that makes it kinda successfull despite its state in many cases.

 jeff white wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The stance I'm addressing is the implication that GWs popularity isn't related to the game being good and playable. The hedged bet "at least in part" is nice but ultimately irrelevant when you're making a very specific judgement on the quality of the game itself.

Either 40K is wildly popular because it is a product that the large majority of fans enjoy and find fun and engaging, or it is wildly popular for some a different reason.

This is a false dilemma,
It would seem from results that a majority would hold the “for some different reason” which may also be “fun” but ultimately relies on (perhaps deeply emotional, hence the “toxic” “abusive” relationship language) attachments to interesting things created perhaps thirty or more years ago, and this reason is maintained in spite of recent movements perhaps including this edition of the rules and supporting print product cycle.

A very easy theory to rule out, as the game has absolutely exploded with NEW players since 8th edition and AOS (which huge numbers of the old whfb vets hated). People who have been only playing the game for 3 or 4 years are not enticed by 3rd edition lore or sunk-cost fallacy.

You want to believe that the grizzled old vets are the lifeblood of this franchise, but you're wrong. 8th and 9th edition saw more new fans jump onboard then the four editions combined that predated them. 40K is currently more popular and mainstream than it has ever been at any other point in its history, that literally could not be possible if it's main customer base was addicted vets.

 jeff white wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The stance I'm addressing is the implication that GWs popularity isn't related to the game being good and playable. The hedged bet "at least in part" is nice but ultimately irrelevant when you're making a very specific judgement on the quality of the game itself.

Either 40K is wildly popular because it is a product that the large majority of fans enjoy and find fun and engaging, or it is wildly popular for some a different reason.

This is a false dilemma,
It would seem from results that a majority would hold the “for some different reason” which may also be “fun” but ultimately relies on (perhaps deeply emotional, hence the “toxic” “abusive” relationship language) attachments to interesting things created perhaps thirty or more years ago, and this reason is maintained in spite of recent movements perhaps including this edition of the rules and supporting print product cycle.

You got the result of Dakkadakka users who bothered answering. Dakkadakka users do not represent the Warhammer ecosphere at large. I am probably the only person in my FLGS that semi-regularly go on Dakkadakka because I enjoy the endless whining and self-flagellation of people here; although as of late it is reaching toxic levels so I go here less. The rest of the playerbase is just enjoying the game. They are actually having fun which does appear to be an alien emotion on Dakka considering the threads.

But please, carry on.