|
Tekopo posted:the logical evolution is that both sides just c+p arguments from elsewhere until the entire thing becomes a huge argument by proxy and passerbys don't know what the gently caress Are you gullible, and stupid, as hell? You may qualify to be part of our dangerous experiment. Bring your resume, wallet, social security, ATM, and all credit cards to Carl's Car Wash.
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
how can posts be real if this thread isn't real
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
When nothing is real, everything is equally real. Let's all get drunk and copy pasta poo poo post each other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
You people are really making GBS threads up my lovely thread with your shitposting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
"I like Warhammer so much I'm going to post about it" -happy people who want others to enjoy a good game
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
Hixson posted:"I like Warhammer so much I'm going to post about it" Nice try GW employee.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
v. impressed by the dedication of people committing so hard to copy-paste trolls that they became unironic 40k players
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
TTerrible posted:I miss LeperFleshs annual post about the financial statement. I understand why he doesn't do them now. I still comment each year but basically the company has been on an upswing. Its failure to collapse was disappointing for folks (although I predicted it would be fine) and in any case other people already jump in and comment whenever the reports come out now. The first time I popped into this thread to discuss the financial statements, it was back under Kirby's watch, when he was publishing bizarre self-important blog posts as chairman's preambles, and folks in the original death thread were making wildly unfounded assertions about GW's financial condition. Kirby's faded into the background and people aren't claiming GW is on the precipice of financial ruin any more, so that original impetus is gone. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
It is now official. Leperflesh has confirmed: *GW is good
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
TKIY posted:It is now official. Leperflesh has confirmed: *GW is good 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Close the thread guys, GW is officially good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
I mean yeah. In the sense that the company is making money for its investors, which is its fundamental purpose and legal obligation to try to do. I think the company could be worth ten times this if it were run by actual competent businesspeople, but this is not the steep ramp down into oblivion that death thread regulars were betting on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:yeah. In the sense that the company is making money for its investors, which is its fundamental purpose and legal obligation to try to do. what if this is actually bad though
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
Dec-Jan is Blood Bowl isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:what if this is actually bad though it is capitalism bad
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Well yeah, nobody was realistically expecting a Doobie's Doghouse death spiral but when that happens, it's always funny so one can hope. It was pretty funny when many LGSs started deeply discounting the sigmar starter sets the autumn after it was released because it just wouldn't sell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm noticing a load of people going "GW's doing great so Sigmar's been a huge success!" but the most enthusiastic I've drawn my FLGS on it is "After General's Handbook came out some people came back". I'd assume their success had more to do with 30k taking off and reintroducing Blood Bowl and Kill Team.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Let's not forget that Total Warhammer did well enough to already get a sequel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Let's not forget that Total Warhammer did well enough to already get a sequel. Two, even. drat shame they nuked Fantasy just before that came out; it actually got several of my buddies asking how they could go out and get the stuff to play Fantasy. That was a depressing conversation. I imagine it drummed up a lot of interest in the Old World, only to really disappointed people when they discovered that it had been squatted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Yeah, that was one of the dumber decisions GW made and I think it's going to take quite a while for people burned by it (either by nuking the armies they played or merely saying, "Hey you know that PC game you really liked? Well we killed the tabletop version, lol") to be willing to invest a lot of time and money in GW stuff. The fact that 40k's future is somewhat-uncertain doesn't help either. You'd think GW would be trying to assuage people's fears about 8th/"Age of Emperor" but to my knowledge, they're keeping most of that under wraps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Between Shadow War (if they bothered to produce enough stock of it) and Dawn of War 3 releasing this month, that number is likely to go higher. GW is... accidentally seeming competent?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Yeah, that was one of the dumber decisions GW made and I think it's going to take quite a while for people burned by it (either by nuking the armies they played or merely saying, "Hey you know that PC game you really liked? Well we killed the tabletop version, lol") to be willing to invest a lot of time and money in GW stuff. The fact that 40k's future is somewhat-uncertain doesn't help either. You'd think GW would be trying to assuage people's fears about 8th/"Age of Emperor" but to my knowledge, they're keeping most of that under wraps. I mean, they keep publicly saying that they aren't doing the AoS treatment for 40k on their site, in white dwarf, and on social media
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:I mean, they keep publicly saying that they aren't doing the AoS treatment for 40k on their site, in white dwarf, and on social media As far as I know the only thing they've explicitly said is that it's not straight up the End Times. That doesn't say much about what they are doing though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:I mean, they keep publicly saying that they aren't doing the AoS treatment for 40k on their site, in white dwarf, and on social media Yeah, but they also told a load of people during the end times that stuff was going to remain valid, nothing was getting squatted, and so on. Rumours that there was a massive change coming were treated as just being random speculation. This is also a general trend with GW products. They're going to have to go a lot of years with clear communication and a track record of actually backing that up before it stops being unreasonable to assume they're lying and are planning on squatting your investment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Yeah, but they also told a load of people during the end times that stuff was going to remain valid, nothing was getting squatted, and so on. Rumours that there was a massive change coming were treated as just being random speculation. This is also a general trend with GW products. They're going to have to go a lot of years with clear communication and a track record of actually backing that up before it stops being unreasonable to assume they're lying and are planning on squatting your investment. Not debating that, just that they have made statements that it isn't AoS for 40k. Although the fact that the next release is "8th edition" and not "new game title" is pretty telling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:Not debating that, just that they have made statements that it isn't AoS for 40k. Although the fact that the next release is "8th edition" and not "new game title" is pretty telling. Sure. I guess it depends what you're intending by "isn't AoS", because I have no doubt that the rules will be recognisable (though this isn't saying much because 40k is already a dumpster-fire ruleswise that basically needs a GM to run at this stage) but it looks a hell of a lot like they're going to be reinventing the setting a la end times with stuff like the Eldar teaming up and Gulliman coming back. Like I'm pretty sure the thing GW picked up was "Points are important for some reason???" and "Have scenarios but nobody cares if they're balanced", rather than "don't throw beloved setting elements into a blender and replace with gold plated supermarines because people are attached to the setting". spectralent fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Apr 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
I'm 99% sure they won't literally blow up the game world like they did for WHFB but that doesn't mean your existing armies will be valid (at least not without substantial changes), which is something that I imagine concerns a lot of current 40k players. I mean, GW said your old stuff would be valid in AoS and that wasn't really true, so you'd think they'd really be going out of their way to show people how all their little guys would fit into 8th. Merely saying that it's not the End Times isn't quite enough here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:I'm 99% sure they won't literally blow up the game world like they did for WHFB but that doesn't mean your existing armies will be valid (at least not without substantial changes), which is something that I imagine concerns a lot of current 40k players. I mean, GW said your old stuff would be valid in AoS and that wasn't really true, so you'd think they'd really be going out of their way to show people how all their little guys would fit into 8th. Merely saying that it's not the End Times isn't quite enough here. yeah but army adjustments are a factor in every edition change. I suspect the reason they haven't gone out of their way to show people how their armies will fit into 8th is because they actually don't have the rules for 8th sorted out yet, and so have no idea. The recent 8th ed announcement feels to me like an effort to stymie AoS-40k rumors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
Sure, adjustments are fine but stuff like the Eldar team-up could be pretty worrying for, say, Dark Eldar players, who might find that they need to make major changes to their army for it to be legal. Likewise with Guilliman; are Super Marines just going to be a new unit, or is this a sign of sweeping changes to the army list? What about smaller Marine factions like Grey Knights? And so on. In any case, this is one of those things where people would have a lot less cause for concern if AoS hadn't turned out like it did. Even with GW's assurances that it'll be better this time, I can see why people would be skeptical. Avenging Dentist fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Apr 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Sure, adjustments are fine but stuff like the Eldar team-up could be pretty worrying for, say, Dark Eldar players, who might find that they need to make major changes to their army for it to be legal. Likewise with Guilliman; are Super Marines just going to be a new unit, or is this a sign of sweeping changes to the army list? What about smaller Marine factions like Grey Knights? And so on. I guess? All speculation at this point, but every new codex usually forces some kind of army change, for viability if not legality. That's not a point in favor for 40k or anything, but it's something players will have to deal with regardless of whether 8th edition is AoS 40k. Super Marines appears to have been a hilarious hoax based on a photo of someone's truescale marine and I'll believe that dumb rumor when I see something tangible. I'm not sure who's concerned about what, tbh. The game will change with the new edition by some amount. 7th edition isn't particularly good, and there are some good things about AoS that 40k could stand to adopt, and I can always just opt to not buy the new edition if it sucks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:The fact that 40k's future is somewhat-uncertain lol no it's not
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
Hey guys, remember when serious gaylord made that hilarious hoax of the circular bases for warhammer? Good times.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
I mean credit where credit is due: at least GW isn't Palladium.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Well yeah, nobody was realistically expecting a Doobie's Doghouse death spiral but when that happens, it's always funny so one can hope. It was pretty funny when many LGSs started deeply discounting the sigmar starter sets the autumn after it was released because it just wouldn't sell. I don't know about doobie's doghouse, but the original death thread was literally a thread for guessing how soon GW would die, and almost all of the guesses were within two years. That was... oh god, probably four years ago now or something. And Age of Sigmar has been "successful," in that it's clear GW is happy enough with its sales compared to warhammer fantasy that, more than a year after release, they're still supporting it. This company's corporate culture is to cut and run when a game line doesn't work out. They would not still be pouring money into AoS if it was a failing game. That doesn't mean it's good. It also doesn't mean Age of Sigmar was the right choice - I'm still convinced that GW could have actually bothered to fix their fantasy game and enjoyed good sales, or even better, make Age of Sigmar an offshoot while continuing to develop and support the Fantasy game. There's no special reason why they couldn't have supported the Old World, the Warhammer 40k far future world, and a Reality Balls age of unspecified timeline in which long-dead heroes of the Old World have been resurrected to fight again, or whatever. Or just added Sigmarines into the Old World. Or some other option, there's obviously plenty. So yeah. GW is a bad company that makes bad games and while the naked contempt for customers may no longer be so blatant, it'll be a lot of years before we can look back and say for sure that the company turned around in 2015-16 and became an actual Good Company with product lines that people would be wise to invest in. From an investor standpoint, they've gotten through a long period of decline and turned the profit hose back on, and that's all they care about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
the amount of short-term gouging they're willing to do fluctuates (although it's been well above the norm for > a decade now) but the core problem of GW remains unchanged, which is that they don't give a poo poo about game design and are therefore extremely bad at it that is, the problem from the point of view of "should you buy their games". they seem okay at making money for their shareholders, which doesn't seem very important to anyone who doesn't happen to own their shares
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:Not debating that, just that they have made statements that it isn't AoS for 40k. Although the fact that the next release is "8th edition" and not "new game title" is pretty telling. They also said all your old armies would be around in the glorious age of Sigmar
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:
Hastings confirmed the mega Marines. The picture might not have been true but the rumor is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
When everyone realizes this thread doesn't exist it'll vanish in a poof of logic
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
ijyt posted:do they actually sell space marine body pillows though real talk Don't know about space marine, but they have that tyranid one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 06:27
|
|