Skip to toolbar

If you were in charge of GW now

Home Forums Fantasy Tabletop Game Discussions If you were in charge of GW now

Supported by (Turn Off)

Related Games:

This topic contains 54 replies, has 16 voices, and was last updated by  onlyonepinman 3 months, 4 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 55 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1346100

    onlyonepinman
    Participant
    10250xp

    Well, I can at least counter one of those.  Nearly everyone I know was actually totally underwhelmed by last year’s Orks release.  So bet all you like, you’re speculating.  I have also seen quite a lot of Kharadron Overlords on various painting and gaming communities so actually I think they were quite popular.  And Stormcast are becoming almost as ubiquitous as Space Marines in the AoS world.  So there’s very little evidence to back up anything you’re saying, it’s purely anecdote and speculation as to which ranges are selling.  The fact remains, irrespective of which ranges are and are not selling, that GW is doing very well indeed financially and the turnaround is almost entirely down to sales.  So you haven’t really said what you would do differently if you were in charge of Games Workshop. You have simply expressed your continuing displeasure at GW’s cancellation of Fantasy Battle switch to Age of Sigmar, which I guess answers the question what would you do if you were in charge of GW in 2015 should anyone be interested.

    I also think you’re being a little disingenuous by suggesting that nothing else on Earth is anything like Warhammer Fantasy Old World.  For a start the actual Renaissance Period of Europe is like the Old World.  But from a fiction point of view you really are forgetting Solomon Kane.  The original WFB setting is very much a mash up of traditional Tolkien fantasty, and Fantasy Horror like Solomon Kane.  It really isn’t as original as you might think.  I totally disagree that Age of Sigmar prevents people from making their own army in their own way themed on something they have read or seen in a film.  If anything Age of Sigmar creates far more flexibility than the old setting.  The old setting was very historically themed and anything that wasn’t historically themed would stick out like a sore thumb.  Age of Sigmar creates far more gaps, much like 40k, into which you can slot your own creations, whether they’re weird and whacky or historically themed.

    I think it’s also fair to say that the fact that GW are making Primaris variants of all the old Space Marine types was the plan all along.  I think Primaris is a way of phasing out all the old Space Marine kits and replacing them with new, more accurately scaled Marines.  I am convinced that there will eventually be a Primaris Tactical squad.  I don’t even think it was because Marines weren’t popular or selling I think it was purely to give Space Marines a.much needed overhaul.  I think the Primaris are excellent models and a much better representation of a Space Marine – and I am utterly ambivalent about space marines, they do absolutely nothing for me

     

    • This reply was modified 4 months, 1 week ago by  onlyonepinman.
    #1346166

    cornishlee
    Participant
    205xp

    I think GW put out some kind of warning or statement about profits being possibly lower. However it seems to me that a great deal of that is due to currency fluctuations brought about as a result of Brexit and the associated uncertainty around it. I think it might also be inferred that growth has slowed, however given the absolutely phenomenal growth seen between 2016 and 2018 I think that was inevitable. As long as they’re maintaining similar levels of sales I think they will be fine. I don’t believe for a second that GW’s fortunes have reversed, I just think they have hit a level now where further growth might be more difficult.

    Sounds fair.

    #1346189

    mecha82
    Participant
    5849xp

    @onlyonepinman Thing about WHFB lore that you might to realize is that it was just like 40k lore mix of different things but given they own identity. So no it wasn’t original but then again not many things really are. But it still had appeal and long history so I agree with @poosh that destroying it was mistake since it never needed overhaul. Rules sure but not lore. They would had been other ways to include Sigmarines and others to lore without having to destroy entire lore and replace it with generic lore that didn’t have that long history and isn’t loved as much as WHFB lore was. People (including me) still love WHFB lore and for good a reason.

    #1346190

    onlyonepinman
    Participant
    10250xp

    I have been around long enough to know what Warhammer Fantasy was.  Warhammer Fantasy was a very small set of themes mixed together and given its own flavour. Coincidentally, Age of Sigmar is also a very small set of themes mixed together and given their own flavour.  The difference is that as a setting there’s far more gaps in the lore for players to invent their own things something that the old world didn’t have. Here’s something that might blow your mind.  There’s nothing at all to say that a simile of the old world doesn’t exist somewhere in the Mortal Realms.  A place where a nation of humans exactly the same as the Empire lives.

    Age of Sigmar, even though YOU don’t like it, wasn’t a mistake because ultimately it hasn’t harmed the company.  It’s doing at least as well as WFB although I would argue it’s probably now more popular in terms of sales but it’s a product over which they can exert much more control in terms of copyright.  Overhauling the world was never about whether people liked it, it was purely about copyright and control of the IP.  Had GW gone bankrupt as a result of the cancellation of Warhammer Fantasy Battle then possibly you argue it was a mistake.  But GW are currently sitting pretty enjoying what is arguably the most successful period in their entire history so it’s really hard to see how Age of Sigmar can be deemed a mistake on any grounds other than a few bitter ex WFB players don’t like it. Sadly for those players, success is not measured by their own personal satisfaction but on sales.

    #1346194

    mecha82
    Participant
    5849xp

    Too bad that GW hasn’t given faction for AoS that is normal humans. It’s difficult to see Sigmarines special when there is no normal humans to compare them to. Besides what makes faction like Empire so interesting is that they are normal humans trying to fight against enemies that are far more powerful than them to protect they homes and families. It’s same as with IG in 40k and currently AoS doesn’t have that. So while there might be one of those in lore that doesn’t reflect to game and models so to answer question of the person who started this thread if I was in charge of GW I would add those to AoS and make sure that they get respect that they deserve instead of keeping pushing Sigmarines all the time.

    #1346232

    onlyonepinman
    Participant
    10250xp

    You’re right and I would also like to see just a regular, order aligned human faction and that’s possibly something I would look at doing if I were in charge of GW. However for the time being at least the Empire are still available as Free Guild so you can still build something human. I would say that the Dark Oath models that have featured in Warhammer Quest and Shadespire would also make a fantastic human faction.  Humans on both or even all sides of the war would also be really interesting.

    #1346532

    skodamarine
    Participant
    1933xp

    It’s hard to see why they don’t publish a new Warhammer fantasy ranked battles rulebook that used the same miniatures as AOS, so that people could chose which way to play. All you would need would be some army trays that let you rank up mini’s on circular bases.

     

    But they destroyed the old Warhammer world, and replaced it with the Sigmar/Realms/Mish-mash  that personally doesn’t appeal to me. I’d want the ranked fantasy game set in the old world, and that might be difficult given that Sigmarines shouldn’t be in that world, but may be the most popular GW fantasy range currently. That may not get past the all powerful marketing gate keepers!

     

     

    #1346567

    beardragon14
    Participant
    5317xp

    I’d do two things

    1) I’d bring back Warmaster as a 15mm (rather than the old 10-12mm) game have it set in the End times of the Old World  when pretty much everybody was getting stuck into everybody else. It is a faster game than the old warhammer fantasy battles, lets pweople play with really are scale armies and doesn’t over lap with current fantasy battle games they sell.

    2) I’d bring back Squats (or failing that introduce the Demiurge) as a full 40k army so some geriatric old fart in Australia gets to play with space dwarfs in 40k again(it was my first ever army of anything) before he @#$#% dies*

    *this isn’t impending (I hope) but I have to wear glasses to paint now …….

    #1348149

    onlyonepinman
    Participant
    10250xp

    @skodamarine there’s nothing really stopping you from using movement trays of any type in Age of Sigmar.  Loads of people use movement trays of all sorts of different shapes and sizes.

    #1348475

    limburger
    Participant
    6651xp

    @skodamarine : it’s not hard to see why they don’t publish a mass combat variant : the customer base isn’t there

    The ‘hot’ thing in wargaming is skirmish style.
    Everyone is doing it.
    We’ve seen Erehwon specifically designed to be warband size, which is somewhat similar in army size as AoS.
    Why do something that practically no one is doing when you can go where the money really is like everyone else?

    GW is a business. They’re not here to create a hobby that you want, unless there is profit to be had.
    You can see it in their marketing.

    It is so much easier to sell a dozen skirmish battle sized factions than it is to sell that same amount of figures to one customer.
    Especially in a market where you’re competing with quick fix enterntainment such as videogames and card games.

    They even have the games to support such small sized forces. Both Killteam to Underworld function as gateway games to their bigger brothers as well as systems that stand on their own.
    Even Adeptus Titanicus is styled as a skirmish style game as opposed to something that could go ‘epic’

    #1348486

    mecha82
    Participant
    5849xp

    I wouldn’t say that no one is doing mass battle games because both 9th Age and KoW are thing so clearly there is also demand to systems like that. Back when GW didn’t do skirmish systems other companies stepped in to do those and now GW also does those. Same thing is with fantasy American football systems before GW revived Blood Bowl. Of course it was KS that made that easier but still we had GW getting competition because there was demand and they weren’t offering it making GW follow trends rather than being one setting those.

    #1348698

    onlyonepinman
    Participant
    10250xp

    @mecha82 9th Age is a free rules set so doesn’t really count as “someone doing it” – It’s not subject to market forces so there’s no risk behind it.  Mantic just released Vanguard so even they’re getting in on the skirmish market.  There simply isn’t a large market for a rank and file fantasty game no matter how much you personally might like them.  For GW to switch focus to rank and file would require there to be a significant appetite for such a game – Kings of War, while popular, is not big enough for GW so even if every single KoW player decided to switch to GW’s game it still wouldn’t make GW enough money for it to be worthwhile.

    #1348866

    mecha82
    Participant
    5849xp

    @onlyonepinman How cute that you always make things seem like it’s always about me. You must really be obsessed with me to always think that. It’s just that I was just trying to give my perspective regardless if I would want that or not. Maybe that’s weird to you but still that doesn’t change that. Point is while there might not be enough demand for GW to do it there still is demand for it. As AoS fan you might not like it but that doesn’t matter. Besides there are still people playing WHFB and keeping it alive that way.

    #1348872

    onlyonepinman
    Participant
    10250xp

    I’m not really sure what you mean.  I was responding to your statement so I guess in that respect it WAS all about you – it was a reply to what you had written.

    Nobody is disputing whether there is a demand for a rank and file game or even trying to tell you that you’re not allowed to like them.  But the topic is rather framed in a GW specific context, the question being what would you do if you were in charge of GW (or to paraphrase, what would you like to see GW make, which is the main thrust of the discussion), so I guess in that regard it is also completely valid to explain why it is unlikely that GW specifically will make a rank and file game (i.e. the market simply not being big enough).  Saying as much in no way invalidates your own personal preference, it’s a simple opinion on why I think GW won’t make one.  Discussions about the merits of 9th Age or Kings of War or other suchs, while interesting, is hardly relevant to a discussion about GW.

    #1348983

    greyhunter88
    Participant
    935xp

    I think this thread is pretty played out, to be honest…

    Fans of WHFB are always going to be upset with the whole “Mc-Wargame” approach that GW has been taking with 40k and AoS, and are never going to truly forget or forgive the whole End Times debacle.

    Fans of AoS are never going to stop enjoying wallowing in glib satisfaction at telling Fantasy fans to “let the past die”, and talk about how Fantasy had no demand, made no money, and was unsustainable.

    None of us have any evidence beyond anecdotes, profit reports (which are not broken down enough to be truly useful), and guesses as to why GW does or did things. I don’t foresee any meaningful consensus developing.

    Though I would add that if GW only cared about chasing the market, they likely wouldn’t be doing something as niche as tabletop wargames in the first place. A company can’t be sustained by simply imitating market trends and chasing the biggest cut of the pie. See EA Games, WoTC, Universal Pictures, etc.

    GW’s properties developed when they were a young and hungry company, forging a new path into an industry that really didn’t exist. That’s when Fantasy and 40k evolved into such strong and robust IP’s that so many people came to love.
    Now that they’re a soulless publicly traded company, groaning under the weight of their own obligations, they’re reaping the benefits of that previous innovation.

    People who think that GW’s recent successes are irrefutable evidence that they are doing things right, or that they have the best games, are ignoring the multiple forces at work behind the scenes that have absolutely nothing to do with the product itself.

    The worst Blumhouse movie will make more money than the best independent horror movie. That’s how things work. The distributors control what is available to the consumer, and they have an incredible amount of say over audience ‘tastes’ by simple dint of controlling what’s out there. So don’t assume that just because more Skirmish games exist that it means that’s what people really want the most. It might be the case, but it’s not that simple.

    Finally, as a consumer, I really couldn’t care less what the market wants. If GW takes a step with one of their games that I don’t approve of, in order to make it ‘mass-market’, I’m going to complain, regardless of how much business sense it might make or not. Telling hobbyists to “get over it” because everything in life has to somehow end up being marketed towards the largest number of people possible is a self-destructive philosophy.
    I’m not just talking out of my ass, either, because there are many real-life examples of this occurring, such as Wizards’ epic failure with 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons, where they alienated their niche market and almost killed the brand.

    I would rather have a modest company making quality products that I love, than some mega-corp making tons of money by selling bobbleheads and merch alongside half-baked skirmish games full of DLC and hidden costs.
    The counter to this would be saying that GW has to make as much money as possible to survive, but this isn’t true. Warlord, Wyrd, Corvus Belli, Mantic, and others are all making solid games that are much better than anything GW is producing (in my opinion), without needing to destroy what makes them special by chasing market shares.

    By encouraging the destruction of your hobby in the philosophy that we need every video and board gamer on the planet to join our community, you might discover that you don’t actually like what we all end up with.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 55 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Supported by (Turn Off)