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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The hobby isn’t just the game though. Never has been, never will be.

Strictly speaking the rules are a way to sell more models, not the other way around.

Whilst we have no way to assess numbers outside of anecdote, I’m pretty sure we all know folk who collect, but never play.

I'm not talking about the hobby though. I'm talking about the game and how to improve that aspect of things. Players who only (or even mostly) collect won't influence projections for the ratio of physical play versus VTT play which is what I've been talking about.

You'll also note that my idea was to sell models with cards, which require a proprietary accessory to read, in packs of models and to sell these cards as a physical product in boost packs MtG style. Neither of these risk cannibalizing model sales as people who buy cards were unlikely to purchase models and those who buy models get cards that can be used by them or used/resold to people interested in the VTT. It's a win-win for GW in the same way that MtG: Arena and the digital version of the Pokemon TCG are wins for their parent companies.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The hobby isn’t just the game though. Never has been, never will be.

Strictly speaking the rules are a way to sell more models, not the other way around.

Whilst we have no way to assess numbers outside of anecdote, I’m pretty sure we all know folk who collect, but never play.

I'm pretty sure we know people who play but never collect either - or who wouldn't collect if they couldn't play. To suggest that playing/collecting is more of the hobby than collecting/playing is a generalization likely to fail as often as it succeeds. It comes down to why each person is doing what they're doing.

Breton wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The hobby isn’t just the game though. Never has been, never will be.

Strictly speaking the rules are a way to sell more models, not the other way around.

Whilst we have no way to assess numbers outside of anecdote, I’m pretty sure we all know folk who collect, but never play.

I'm pretty sure we know people who play but never collect either - or who wouldn't collect if they couldn't play. To suggest that playing/collecting is more of the hobby than collecting/playing is a generalization likely to fail as often as it succeeds. It comes down to why each person is doing what they're doing.

Which wasn’t my claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The hobby isn’t just the game though. Never has been, never will be.

Strictly speaking the rules are a way to sell more models, not the other way around.

Whilst we have no way to assess numbers outside of anecdote, I’m pretty sure we all know folk who collect, but never play.

I'm not talking about the hobby though. I'm talking about the game and how to improve that aspect of things. Players who only (or even mostly) collect won't influence projections for the ratio of physical play versus VTT play which is what I've been talking about.

You'll also note that my idea was to sell models with cards, which require a proprietary accessory to read, in packs of models and to sell these cards as a physical product in boost packs MtG style. Neither of these risk cannibalizing model sales as people who buy cards were unlikely to purchase models and those who buy models get cards that can be used by them or used/resold to people interested in the VTT. It's a win-win for GW in the same way that MtG: Arena and the digital version of the Pokemon TCG are wins for their parent companies.

Not sure that’s ever worked though. Again, anecdotal, but when I finally get my arse into gear, get my Heresy Dark Angels painted and get playing again? I don’t want a digital experience. I want the social interaction of meeting new players, forging friendships and friendly rivalries.

Further anecdote? In all my times as a former GW Till Monkey (three, maybe four separate stunts between 2000 and 2010, always part time)? Parents were happy to shell out precisely because it wasn’t “another bloody computer game”.

Would folk play the way you suggested? Absolutely. But would it overall be worth the time and cash investment needed to get it up and running for GW? Personally I doubt it, because the social aspect it such an intrinsic part of the experience.

Breton wrote:
Why are beer and pretzel games less worthy of being balanced? Shouldn't these lists be equally plausible targets for balance and synergy? Especially if they're fluffy?

The issues here are many:

1) It's not possible to balance every combination of options against every other combination of options even while using objectives as a way to smooth things out. For example, a guard army that focuses heavily on anti-GEQ firepower won't have a good time against a list that skews towards high toughness and good saves even though both lists may be fluffy and generally of poor efficiency when compared to a tournament TAC style list.

2) It's tough to find the failure modes in these sorts of games. In a tournament, we can assume most players, especially those that won their first two rounds, are playing to win and making reasonably smart gameplay choices. In a beer and pretzels game, the Ork player may well have decided that sitting on objectives was unOrky and made a game losing charge because it's what his army would do.

3) It's tough to determine skill differences. Tournaments will also have skill gaps but those should mainly occur in the early rounds once you get to 2-0 or 3-0 it can be safely assumed that the low-skill players have been filtered out of the data set.

I'm on board with the concept here, but I'm still unclear on why the Beer and Pretzel Stompa isn't worthy of buffing until it goes to a tournament. I'd also like to know why Trajann needs to be toned down instead of additional options need to be added. How many Datasheets is Trajann fighting for space with? How many of them are a named Special Character which usually provide better-for-cheaper or unique-shenanigan-potential?

You might want to read that again. Semper is arguing that the Stompa, and other units that see zero tournament play, should be buffed while units that are over-represented should be nerfed.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The hobby isn’t just the game though. Never has been, never will be.

Strictly speaking the rules are a way to sell more models, not the other way around.

Whilst we have no way to assess numbers outside of anecdote, I’m pretty sure we all know folk who collect, but never play.

I'm pretty sure we know people who play but never collect either - or who wouldn't collect if they couldn't play. To suggest that playing/collecting is more of the hobby than collecting/playing is a generalization likely to fail as often as it succeeds. It comes down to why each person is doing what they're doing.

Which wasn’t my claim.

Its what I inferred from these two:

Strictly speaking the rules are a way to sell more models, not the other way around.

I’m pretty sure we all know folk who collect, but never play

And my point is that for most they're inextricably linked. More models sell more rules, more rules sell more models.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not sure that’s ever worked though. Again, anecdotal, but when I finally get my arse into gear, get my Heresy Dark Angels painted and get playing again? I don’t want a digital experience. I want the social interaction of meeting new players, forging friendships and friendly rivalries.

Okay, but that's not what everybody wants. *Points at League of Legends, the largest video game franchise that has ever existed*

Further anecdote? In all my times as a former GW Till Monkey (three, maybe four separate stunts between 2000 and 2010, always part time)? Parents were happy to shell out precisely because it wasn’t “another bloody computer game”.

There might be a slight bias in your data set just as there would be if you instead worked at a Gamestop that also sold 40k models for some reason.

Would folk play the way you suggested? Absolutely. But would it overall be worth the time and cash investment needed to get it up and running for GW? Personally I doubt it, because the social aspect it such an intrinsic part of the experience.

I don't think you're correct on this. Look at Roblox, VR Chat, Fortnite (especially the cosmetic skin culture that has grown up around it) to see how the younger generation is choosing to interact. For them, a game they can play with zero investment on an iPad is the default mode of entertainment and we're weird for filling our homes with plastic junk that doesn't even do anything.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The hobby isn’t just the game though. Never has been, never will be.

Strictly speaking the rules are a way to sell more models, not the other way around.

Whilst we have no way to assess numbers outside of anecdote, I’m pretty sure we all know folk who collect, but never play.

I'm not talking about the hobby though. I'm talking about the game and how to improve that aspect of things. Players who only (or even mostly) collect won't influence projections for the ratio of physical play versus VTT play which is what I've been talking about.

You'll also note that my idea was to sell models with cards, which require a proprietary accessory to read, in packs of models and to sell these cards as a physical product in boost packs MtG style. Neither of these risk cannibalizing model sales as people who buy cards were unlikely to purchase models and those who buy models get cards that can be used by them or used/resold to people interested in the VTT. It's a win-win for GW in the same way that MtG: Arena and the digital version of the Pokemon TCG are wins for their parent companies.

I'll also note that I pointed out that ways to play 40k virtually exists and are nearly 100% free and they haven't really taken off. You kind of just glossed over that though.

Breton wrote:
And my point is that for most they're inextricably linked. More models sell more rules, more rules sell more models.

I started playing floor wars on a roughly 4x6 rug with things like poker chips, cups, and cardboard boxes as models because I liked the lore and the rules but didn't like painting and modeling or the expense of the model kits. My largest single 40k purchase was second hand and everything else I own was free as friends quit the game. I don't currently play 40k and have no desire to buy or build models because the current gameplay is terrible.

I might play a VTT version of 40k if the cost to get into it was reasonable, as in not $500+ for a 2,000-point army, and there was a free demo for each faction so I could test them out before committing. Heck, maybe they could make a slow grow Free-to-Play model where you start with a 250-point generic list for each faction and need to play to unlock new units and unit upgrades. That would fit GW's MO and the current games as a service climate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'll also note that I pointed out that ways to play 40k virtually exists and are nearly 100% free and they haven't really taken off. You kind of just glossed over that though.

None of them are official, none of the clients are designed for 40k, they don't do any rules or movement calculations for the players, they are all clunky and thus not as significant a time savings over a physical game, and they aren't advertised by one of the largest companies in the board game and hobby space. If you can't see why these might be barriers to their popularity then I'm not sure I can help you.

 Sim-Life wrote:


I'll also note that I pointed out that way to play 40k virtually exists and are nearly 100% free and they haven't really taken off. You kind of just glossed over that though.

VTT versions are not neatly packaged. The Dice and Board version is.

GW is never going to get $50 for a card with a code on it that will unlock your newly revamped Captain Chaosy McLoyalistface. or 90+ for 3 cards, an instruction manual and software license.

They've been fairly intelligent. They put their IP out in games that will attract new players, but not in such a way that the tabletop version is rendered redundant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Breton wrote:
And my point is that for most they're inextricably linked. More models sell more rules, more rules sell more models.

I started playing floor wars on a roughly 4x6 rug with things like poker chips, cups, and cardboard boxes as models because I liked the lore and the rules but didn't like painting and modeling or the expense of the model kits. My largest single 40k purchase was second hand and everything else I own was free as friends quit the game. I don't currently play 40k and have no desire to buy or build models because the current gameplay is terrible.

That's pretty much the point I was making. You're not buying models because the rules are terrible. They're linked.

I might play a VTT version of 40k if the cost to get into it was reasonable, as in not $500+ for a 2,000-point army, and there was a free demo for each faction so I could test them out before committing. Heck, maybe they could make a slow grow Free-to-Play model where you start with a 250-point generic list for each faction and need to play to unlock new units and unit upgrades. That would fit GW's MO and the current games as a service climate.

As I understand it, and I may be wrong because I don't do it - VTT's are theoretically free. You may or not have to pay for the VTT itself, but beyond that the 40K specific game assets aren't sold as that would cause some easy IP issues. But you have to go looking for them, and do a lot of legwork yourself. Thus, my point about being neatly packaged. You may enjoy Battlesector or Gladius on Steam. They're closer to tabletop than Space Marine or other First Person Shooters, but they're still not a direct copy.

Breton wrote:
GW is never going to get $50 for a card with a code on it that will unlock your newly revamped Captain Chaosy McLoyalistface.

They might.

https://na.wargaming.net/shop/wot/main/?utm_campaign=wot-portal&utm_source=new-main-page&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=PSbanner-1-new

You don't get anything physical for buying a tank in WoT but people sink $$$ into getting the latest and greatest.

https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/other-magic-products/mtg-arena/806398-cost-vs-paper-discussion-and-advisory

MtG Arena is more expensive to play the way you would play in paper but is still extremely popular to the point where a large number of in-person events have been cut in favor of digital-only events.

There's also Star Citizen which isn't even a full game yet and has still taken in over $500 million from selling digital spaceships to rich nerds.

GW could easily enter this market and make easy money without harming their model sales, but they'd need to make a game that people want to play before that can happen.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Not sure that’s ever worked though. Again, anecdotal, but when I finally get my arse into gear, get my Heresy Dark Angels painted and get playing again? I don’t want a digital experience. I want the social interaction of meeting new players, forging friendships and friendly rivalries.

Okay, but that's not what everybody wants. *Points at League of Legends, the largest video game franchise that has ever existed*

Further anecdote? In all my times as a former GW Till Monkey (three, maybe four separate stunts between 2000 and 2010, always part time)? Parents were happy to shell out precisely because it wasn’t “another bloody computer game”.

There might be a slight bias in your data set just as there would be if you instead worked at a Gamestop that also sold 40k models for some reason.

Would folk play the way you suggested? Absolutely. But would it overall be worth the time and cash investment needed to get it up and running for GW? Personally I doubt it, because the social aspect it such an intrinsic part of the experience.

I don't think you're correct on this. Look at Roblox, VR Chat, Fortnite (especially the cosmetic skin culture that has grown up around it) to see how the younger generation is choosing to interact. For them, a game they can play with zero investment on an iPad is the default mode of entertainment and we're weird for filling our homes with plastic junk that doesn't even do anything.

I think you’re missing the appeal of miniatures games entirely, and the fact that GW have been posting record takings after record takings at a time when as you say, micro transaction games have been gaming popularity.

It’s not a digital endeavour, and yet GW are making plenty of profit. There’s basically no need for them to follow your suggestion, as it takes money to set it up, money to maintain it (servers and that) and to find a market which I fear you’re somewhat overestimating.

Breton wrote:
That's pretty much the point I was making. You're not buying models because the rules are terrible. They're linked.

I'm also not buying models for how cool they look and if I ever get into 40k again I will be doing model swaps and second hand buying to collect my army.

As I understand it, and I may be wrong because I don't do it - VTT's are theoretically free. You may or not have to pay for the VTT itself, but beyond that the 40K specific game assets aren't sold as that would cause some easy IP issues. But you have to go looking for them, and do a lot of legwork yourself. Thus, my point about being neatly packaged. You may enjoy Battlesector or Gladius on Steam. They're closer to tabletop than Space Marine or other First Person Shooters, but they're still not a direct copy.

The current 40k VTT offerings aren't good in my opinion. I've tried both and Vassal is clunky, slow, literally two-dimensional, and has - in the past - had legal issues which means up-to-date releases of new units may or may not even happen. TTS makes me motion sick, has some of the worst keyboard and mouse controls I've ever experienced, and can be slower than playing the physical version of many games because it does nothing to streamline then. Free means nothing if the experience is worthless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I think you’re missing the appeal of miniatures games entirely, and the fact that GW have been posting record takings after record takings at a time when as you say, micro transaction games have been gaming popularity.

It’s not a digital endeavour, and yet GW are making plenty of profit. There’s basically no need for them to follow your suggestion, as it takes money to set it up, money to maintain it (servers and that) and to find a market which I fear you’re somewhat overestimating.

GW making money by doing the same old thing they've always done doesn't mean they couldn't be making even more money by focusing on long-neglected areas of their product line. Nor does being risk-averse, as we know GW to be, mean that a company is being fiscally responsible. Given current decade-long trends and what other players in the same and similar markets are doing GW could end up being the next Polaroid if they fail to stay relevent.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Breton wrote:
That's pretty much the point I was making. You're not buying models because the rules are terrible. They're linked.

I'm also not buying models for how cool they look and if I ever get into 40k again I will be doing model swaps and second hand buying to collect my army.

You're an enigma. You've "gotten back into" the game what 3 times since 2013. You've had large collections of almost free armies and complaining at the cost of getting started or modern armies despite evidently not keeping the free armies. You claim yourself to be fluff minded and enjoy a casual game whilst also asking if demi-company lists were friendly back in the day and haven't played this edition whilst also saying the rules aren't great.

Dudeface wrote:
You're an enigma. You've "gotten back into" the game what 3 times since 2013. You've had large collections of almost free armies and complaining at the cost of getting started or modern armies despite evidently not keeping the free armies.

I still own the free armies, but the current meta would require me to make significant purchases to play something worth bringing to the table. I've considered dumping the entire collection a number of times but haven't because one day I may want to actually play again.

Also, I got back into 40k in those examples by engaging with the forum, watching BatReps, and theory crafting lists I might have bought if I had the time and money for them. I'm into League of Legends because I watch the pros play at a level I'll never reach while playing the game's casual modes and avoiding ranked play. I'm into hockey because I watch the NHL and track prospect stats on my team's subforum on HFBoards (I go by Tables of Stats and post mainly in the Canucks section if anybody wants to look me up).

You claim yourself to be fluff minded and enjoy a casual game whilst also asking if demi-company lists were friendly back in the day

I like both forms of play. I can enjoy both D&D 5e and Gloomhaven which are similar in theme but very different in execution. I can enjoy a silly EDH deck in MtG that doesn't try all that hard to win while also enjoying the challenge of building and refining a cEDH-level deck that I would likely play a few times and then take apart because that kind of deck isn't that fun for my group to play against. I can enjoy a fluffy stupid 40k list played with friends on planet pool table and enjoy theory crafting a meta-level tournament list that I have no intention of ever buying models for.

It's okay to enjoy more than one aspect of a game and I'd go so far as to say that people who engage with a hobby narrowly are probably doing it wrong.

and haven't played this edition whilst also saying the rules aren't great.

You don't need to play a ruleset to see that it's awful. Just look at Votann for proof of that.

Yet your insistence there is a market is purely an opinion - and one based on the currently baseless assumption GW haven’t considered it.

The only digital thing GW really needs to do are digital Codexes/game specific equivalents. Ideally ones updated as FAQ’s come out.

But making the whole game Digital? What’s the point? If people want to play computer games, they play….computer games.

If I want to be trash talked by some squeaky voiced, spotty faced teenaged oik, there are dozens if not hundreds of games out there I can sign up for already.

Putting the cards into the boxes? Why? It doesn’t save anyone money. And if the cards are sold separately, where’s the financial incentive for GW there? No-one is going to pay GW prices for purely digital equivalents. And if they’re buying the models the hypothetical card is included in? Where’s the profit margin for offering the digital version? It’s extra work, extra cost, for no additional income.

Hard pass on making the game digital. TTS is fine enough for convenience but it will never replace the feeling of playing on a real table in front a someone in the flesh

I think the issue with GW's push up/push down based on tournament data approach is that 40k's competitive scene is small, and the number of professional players disproportionately influence it. Which doesn't mean I think you should take casual games - but does need to impact your decisions.

Lets say we get a Marine Meta. This will make units that are good into Marines seem good (certainly desirable in any case) while units which are bad into Marines will appear bad. If however Marines are not as common - which may happen in certain tournaments, and certainly if Marines were nerfed - this would change. Which is often why I think you used to see different metas emerge in the US, Europe and perhaps especially Australia. This may have been disprortionately due to different game systems (ITC, ETC etc) in the older editions - but I also think it related to "we just don't build lists like that". List "X" into 5 games of "Y" may do less well than into 5 games of "Z".

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Breton wrote:
GW is never going to get $50 for a card with a code on it that will unlock your newly revamped Captain Chaosy McLoyalistface.

They might.

https://na.wargaming.net/shop/wot/main/?utm_campaign=wot-portal&utm_source=new-main-page&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=PSbanner-1-new

You don't get anything physical for buying a tank in WoT but people sink $$$ into getting the latest and greatest.

Um:
20×+100% to experience earned in battle for 1 h
20×+50% to credits earned in battle for 1 h
20×+300% to Free and Crew XP earned in battle for 1 h
30×Mission for x5 XP for the ISU-152K

I get the impression they're buying the power leveling not the tank.

This bundle:
25×+100% to experience earned in battle for 1 h
25×+300% to Free and Crew XP earned in battle for 1 h
25×+50% to credits earned in battle for 1 h
by itself with no Tank is 40 bucks on its own.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
[B]ased on the currently baseless assumption GW haven’t considered it.

Where did I make that assumption? My assumption is that GW probably has looked into it, decided that they aren't interested for whatever reason, and will continue to make excellent models and subpar rules because it's the path of least resistance.

My guess is that GW is leaving money on the table because the idea of restructuring how they approach the game side of 40k isn't one any ranking member of management is interested in working on at the moment. Lots of good ideas die on the vine because leadership doesn't bite on the idea. Sometimes the idea dies there other times the idea pops up at another company and we get to see if it was a good idea or not.

But making the whole game Digital? What’s the point? If people want to play computer games, they play….computer games.

Tell that to the people who play MtG Arena and the physical game and spend money on both.

If I want to be trash talked by some squeaky voiced, spotty faced teenaged oik, there are dozens if not hundreds of games out there I can sign up for already.

The trend is actually away from that kind of communication. A fair few popular games don't have any form of chat between opponents and other games have started to limit chat between members on opposite teams.

Putting the cards into the boxes? Why? It doesn’t save anyone money. And if the cards are sold separately, where’s the financial incentive for GW there? No-one is going to pay GW prices for purely digital equivalents. And if they’re buying the models the hypothetical card is included in? Where’s the profit margin for offering the digital version? It’s extra work, extra cost, for no additional income.

The digital cards in boxes are a very inexpensive loss leader to get people invested in the online game, once you've coded the unit and made the 3d models and animations the cards are basically free. You expect that most codes won't be used but hope that the codes that are used either get an existing player into the digital game or get a new player, who was likely given the cards for free or sold them for below market value, into the game. The best current example, done by the most successful franchise to ever exist, is the Pokemon TCG. They include digital codes in their physical card packs so that one physical pack equals one digital pack but also allow you to buy digital-only cards while just the cards you want are available on the secondary market.

As for why people would pay equal prices or higher for the cards, that's where the blind box card pack model and cosmetics come into play. The basic cards you get in the boxes can only get you the base-level skins that you can't customize. The ones in packs, where most of the cards will be duplicates or for an army you don't play, will have all the cool skins, voice lines, and animations in them. This lets you keep the cost of single packs low while ensuring that, some fraction, of the cards inside still have value because we know cosmetics and blind boxes drive sales.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Yet your insistence there is a market is purely an opinion - and one based on the currently baseless assumption GW haven’t considered it.

Oh I believe there's a market. I also believe GW expressly HAS considered it and rejected it. Aside from the forementioned Total War Warhammer Fantasy games that weren't released until after WHFB was squatted, there's Battlesector and Gladius which are close but not direct replacements. There have been specialist games like Bloodbowl and Epic released as computer games. There have been strategy games that are absolutely not even close like Dawn of War. There have been in genre but not RTS games like Space Marine. I'd say they've been very careful not to risk their bread and butter franchise(s) by diluting them with virtual versions.

There’s also the issue that the meta can be misleading.

Whilst personal choice is personal choice, and this isn’t a criticism, some units can be taken over others due to extreme math hammering, rather than the unit left out being objectively bobbins.

I’ve also encountered bad losers who used a Tournament List, got stomped, and because they didn’t really understand the game, or have experience of a non-optimised themed list, they declared my army broken or unfair etc, when the issue was them missing necessarily open goals I had to leave for my daft plans to work. Or worse, when I’ve played an absolute blinder, being told I simply “diced” them, that the sole deciding factor was favourable rolling, and not the strategy, list and tactics I used to good effect.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not tarring anyone except those persons with this brush. But such claims and attitudes still filter through to join legitimate concerns, muddying the waters as to where a given problem actually lies.

Example of my themed lists? 6th/7th/8th/9th Ed Dark Elves. I went Monster and Chariot heavy, with only Repeater Crossbows as my Core.

It had real power, but was far from a Win Button list. I ran with zero magic when magic did horrible things. The power and my success stemmed from me knowing its capabilities inside out. If I blobbed it, I’d be staring defeat in the face, as unless I could wrangle my advantages (flank and rear charges, Black Dragon and Manticore switching apparent targets etc) I had zero combat resolution.

It was fun to use, and many opponents enjoyed its unique challenge.

Breton wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Breton wrote:
GW is never going to get $50 for a card with a code on it that will unlock your newly revamped Captain Chaosy McLoyalistface.

They might.

https://na.wargaming.net/shop/wot/main/?utm_campaign=wot-portal&utm_source=new-main-page&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=PSbanner-1-new

You don't get anything physical for buying a tank in WoT but people sink $$$ into getting the latest and greatest.

Um:
20×+100% to experience earned in battle for 1 h
20×+50% to credits earned in battle for 1 h
20×+300% to Free and Crew XP earned in battle for 1 h
30×Mission for x5 XP for the ISU-152K

I get the impression they're buying the power leveling not the tank.

This bundle:
25×+100% to experience earned in battle for 1 h
25×+300% to Free and Crew XP earned in battle for 1 h
25×+50% to credits earned in battle for 1 h
by itself with no Tank is 40 bucks on its own.

The game is old and a lot of players will have little need for the credits, experience, or premium time but WG does like milking new players, players who don't have time to grind whenever they can, or players grinding for the newly announced but not yet unlocked tech tree so they can get all the tanks day 1 before anybody else has them. There are also tanks that are limited time only, only available in loot boxes during holiday events, tanks that have been "retired" and brought back for increased prices, tanks that sell with special crews and skins... So WG will reach into pockets one way or another while charging you $15 per month for premium which you need to break even unless you're a very skilled player.

https://na.wargaming.net/shop/wot/vehicles/ps_p_15931/

That's $65 for just the tank.

These companies understand how to part players from their money and do it very well. It's why I suspect that GW could print money if they started doing it too.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

The digital cards in boxes are a very inexpensive loss leader

You want them to put a loss leader in the money maker that keeps the doors open and the lights on? That's pretty much WHY there hasn't been a virtual replacement for 40K.

Breton wrote:
You want them to put a loss leader in the money maker that keeps the doors open and the lights on? That's pretty much WHY there hasn't been a virtual replacement for 40K.

Yes, because it 100% makes sense to do so. The digital assets that the cards represent have a one-time fixed cost and the cards themselves are pennies on the dollar cheap and would likely have their cost and then some covered by selling players the dongle needed to read them. It's the equivalent of putting a Fortnite code in a PS4 controller box without charging extra for the package.

Server costs can get pricey, but a game of 40k will require less server power than something like World of Warcraft or League of Legends as it's turn-based, can afford to be loose with latency, and could potentially used instanced hosting where one of the two players uses some of their computers spare processing overhead to run the game. So I doubt those costs would be significant at the scale GW operates at.

In short, the cards are basically a drop in the advertising bucket for a digital service designed to make a casino in Vegas look wallet-friendly.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There’s also the issue that the meta can be misleading.

Whilst personal choice is personal choice, and this isn’t a criticism, some units can be taken over others due to extreme math hammering, rather than the unit left out being objectively bobbins.

Yeah. I think the problem with extreme mathhammer is that it can lead you to a mentality of "X beats Y 100% of the time". But this isn't usually the case. For example, wasn't there an Ork list that came third in a major tournament two months ago with 6 Killa Kans? I don't think Kans were considered good (hence the slight points drop) - but they weren't "so awful" they made a list insta-lose every game.

Its interesting to consider what will be considered the counter-meta. If the S-Tier factions are say Guard+Marines (IH, DA maybe etc), is there a counter-pick from factions which don't appear as "neutrally mathematically good" - but are good if you expect to play those lists 3-4 times on your way to the finals? This is where its Orks and Semper's been running the long con.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Breton wrote:
You want them to put a loss leader in the money maker that keeps the doors open and the lights on? That's pretty much WHY there hasn't been a virtual replacement for 40K.

Yes, because it 100% makes sense to do so. The digital assets that the cards represent have a one-time fixed cost and the cards themselves are pennies on the dollar cheap and would likely have their cost and then some covered by selling players the dongle needed to read them. It's the equivalent of putting a Fortnite code in a PS4 controller box without charging extra for the package.

Server costs can get pricey, but a game of 40k will require less server power than something like World of Warcraft or League of Legends as it's turn-based, can afford to be loose with latency, and could potentially used instanced hosting where one of the two players uses some of their computers spare processing overhead to run the game. So I doubt those costs would be significant at the scale GW operates at.

In short, the cards are basically a drop in the advertising bucket for a digital service designed to make a casino in Vegas look wallet-friendly.

So, after hiring a games studio to make this virtualised environment, which will need to be pinpoint accurate and beautiful or woe be the company that doesn't drop AAA quality normally, never mind the people on here because GW apparently have infinite money to pay for the best or don't bother, their pitch to the board is:

"We hired a couple dozen expensive staff, spent years and millions creating a virtual tabletop platform we can monetise and we want to include codes to access it inside the boxes of the models"
"What... why?"
"Well we realise there will be significant tech upkeep costs, support costs, extra staff potentially needed... but think of it as a loss leader"
"You mean loss as in someone buys the box, takes the card out and either sells it or the minis robbing us of one revenue stream, endless overheads and bad press?"
"That's the one!"

Meanwhile random Dakkanaut1569 boots up Warhammer Online
"Looks gak, GW's minted, it should look better than Starfield.... I'll sell the minis off for 75% rrp and go play this for free on TTS"

Tyel wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There’s also the issue that the meta can be misleading.

Whilst personal choice is personal choice, and this isn’t a criticism, some units can be taken over others due to extreme math hammering, rather than the unit left out being objectively bobbins.

Yeah. I think the problem with extreme mathhammer is that it can lead you to a mentality of "X beats Y 100% of the time". But this isn't usually the case. For example, wasn't there an Ork list that came third in a major tournament two months ago with 6 Killa Kans? I don't think Kans were considered good (hence the slight points drop) - but they weren't "so awful" they made a list insta-lose every game.

Its interesting to consider what will be considered the counter-meta. If the S-Tier factions are say Guard+Marines (IH, DA maybe etc), is there a counter-pick from factions which don't appear as "neutrally mathematically good" - but are good if you expect to play those lists 3-4 times on your way to the finals? This is where its Orks and Semper's been running the long con.

There will always be rogue lists that exploit the meta to generate above-expected results at single events. The issue is they rarely last, can only be played by a very small segment of players lest they get countered by meta shifts, and might have gotten lucky with match-ups and dice in close games to reach their placement. It's cool when these things happen, but they're the exception that proves the rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
So, after hiring a games studio to make this virtualised environment, which will need to be pinpoint accurate and beautiful or woe be the company that doesn't drop AAA quality normally, never mind the people on here because GW apparently have infinite money to pay for the best or don't bother, their pitch to the board is:

"We hired a couple dozen expensive staff, spent years and millions creating a virtual tabletop platform we can monetise and we want to include codes to access it inside the boxes of the models"
"What... why?"
"Well we realise there will be significant tech upkeep costs, support costs, extra staff potentially needed... but think of it as a loss leader"
"You mean loss as in someone buys the box, takes the card out and either sells it or the minis robbing us of one revenue stream, endless overheads and bad press?"
"That's the one!"

Meanwhile random Dakkanaut1569 boots up Warhammer Online
"Looks gak, GW's minted, it should look better than Starfield.... I'll sell the minis off for 75% rrp and go play this for free on TTS"

The thing is, that in that case GW still made the same money as they would have off the box of models and now gets a chance to get Dakkanaut42069 to spend money on microtransactions while bitching on forums and giving them free advertisement. It's like you have no understanding of what makes F2P loot box games tick.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
So, after hiring a games studio to make this virtualised environment, which will need to be pinpoint accurate and beautiful or woe be the company that doesn't drop AAA quality normally, never mind the people on here because GW apparently have infinite money to pay for the best or don't bother, their pitch to the board is:

"We hired a couple dozen expensive staff, spent years and millions creating a virtual tabletop platform we can monetise and we want to include codes to access it inside the boxes of the models"
"What... why?"
"Well we realise there will be significant tech upkeep costs, support costs, extra staff potentially needed... but think of it as a loss leader"
"You mean loss as in someone buys the box, takes the card out and either sells it or the minis robbing us of one revenue stream, endless overheads and bad press?"
"That's the one!"

Meanwhile random Dakkanaut1569 boots up Warhammer Online
"Looks gak, GW's minted, it should look better than Starfield.... I'll sell the minis off for 75% rrp and go play this for free on TTS"

The thing is, that in that case GW still made the same money as they would have off the box of models and now gets a chance to get Dakkanaut42069 to spend money on microtransactions while bitching on forums and giving them free advertisement. It's like you have no understanding of what makes F2P loot box games tick.

It's almost like you refuse to acknowledge that GW aren't a software company and the significant costs involved far outweigh any potential games. The largest majority of F2P games are failures or at best a temporary spike before being abandoned. You constantly refer back to LoL, how many competitors have fallen by the wayside over the years? I'd wager the majority have never been heard of by the bulk of people. a F2P game needs to be good enough to be worth playing. If it's good enough to be worth playing, which you claim 40k isn't interestingly, why ever buy the minis as a gamer? There's literally 0 incentive, they'd be killing their own game. As you allude to online games require more frequent patching and balancing - good luck reflecting that in the physical game.

40k categorically does not translate well to a F2P game.

Dudeface wrote:
It's almost like you refuse to acknowledge that GW aren't a software company and the significant costs involved far outweigh any potential games. The largest majority of F2P games are failures or at best a temporary spike before being abandoned.

The thing is, companies are going to fold because they aren't software companies. Just look at the retail world and the difference between companies that integrated online shopping early and had time to get it right versus competitors that aren't tech companies and got steamrolled because they didn't adapt. How many companies that weren't tech companies struggled when it was work from home or shutter the company? In the gaming space, I feel confident in predicting that the way forward will involve more and more integration with our phones and that we're close to a new wave of augmented-reality tabletop games that will threaten the status quo in the TTRPG and Wargaming spaces.

You constantly refer back to LoL, how many competitors have fallen by the wayside over the years?

It looks like it's about 50/50, with probably 25% of MOBAs games going on to be healthy long-term earners. That's pretty good odds in the gaming world and many of the games that failed were the first and only product of developers that were formed to try to break out into the MOBA space. MOBAs, even failed ones, have not brought down otherwise healthy companies.

GW would likely hire an established studio for their game and thus insulate themselves from failure, which could kill the studio but wouldn't seriously harm GW, while hoping to hit big and reap large rewards.

They would also have an advantage by being the first player into the space as no other company with pockets as deep as GW has a virtual wargame with the mechanics of a tabletop game.

I'd wager the majority have never been heard of by the bulk of people. a F2P game needs to be good enough to be worth playing.

Be honest, would you call RAID: Shadow Legends, AFK Arena, or Pokemon Masters good games? If you can't, I won't blame you for not being able to, can you explain why they're popular and make all the money for near zero effort?

If it's good enough to be worth playing, which you claim 40k isn't interestingly, why ever buy the minis as a gamer?

Gamers buy physical goods from their chosen game all the time. There's a pretty large market around figures, shirts, posters, etc. based around games. 40k players would probably love the extra bragging rights they'd get by having their in-game army on the shelf behind them and streamers would have expertly painted armies behind them as part of their set.

GW could also pull a Nintendo/Skylanders and make it so the online-enabled models are more expensive, come preassembled and painted, and include an RFID tag in the base of the lead model of the set. Amibo Primaris Lieutenants could rake in some serious bank.

There's literally 0 incentive, they'd be killing their own game. As you allude to online games require more frequent patching and balancing - good luck reflecting that in the physical game.

GW should frequently patch their physical game rather than letting issues fester as long as they do. That idea is what started this tangent.

40k categorically does not translate well to a F2P game.

I disagree. I think there is a market and that GW should be the first into it before somebody beats them to it and puts them at risk.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

40k categorically does not translate well to a F2P game.

I disagree. I think there is a market and that GW should be the first into it before somebody beats them to it and puts them at risk.

Like... TTS? Since it'd be literally the exact same but maybe prettier?