|
TKIY posted:Mantic and FFG had a golden chance to snap up fantasy players and failed Mantic's kickstarters and release of Kings of War II and its subsequent supplements were wildly successful, far beyond the company's ability to even cope with the expansion of their production. To the extent Mantic failed, it was an inability to grow fast enough and deliver enough product. But I think failure to capture the entirety of GW's market share of the fantasy tabletop wargaming market does not constitute "failure" by Mantic: they went from essentially zero market share to multiple millions of pounds annually of market share, and that's a huge win for the company. FFG was contractually forbidden from making games to compete with GW's tabletop miniatures wargames. They kind of started to sort of do it anyway, and eventually lost (or gave up, it's not clear) their GW license. They're now coming out with a fantasy competitor, but it's way too early to tell if it is or will be successful. Regardless, they did not have that "golden chance" while they still maintained GW's licensing terms. Lord_Hambrose posted:https://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/36971/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-fall-2016 quote:This chart of the Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Lines (hobby channel) reflects sales in Fall 2016. The charts are based on interviews with retailers, distributors, and manufacturers. This is survey data, and it's especially suspect given the manufacturers in question have never shown a willingness to release accurate sales data of individual product lines to the public; and GW is its own distributor. That doesn't mean the data is worthless, but it's not exactly verifiable. Another issue with it is how GW and Privateer Press account for sales of their models. At least some proportion of fantasy and science fiction minis sold by both companies are sold not as game pieces but as models for pure modelers who do not play the games. Both GW and PP presumably ignore this distinction, probably because they have no way of judging it either. Whereas almost nobody is buying X-Wing ships purely to repaint them with no intention of playing X-Wing.
|
#
¿
May 4, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
I think they still need to stop abusing independent retailers, make games with good rules (not just "playable because we added points" but actually modernized rules that compete with other modern games), stop abusing their own employees, and prove that they will continue to support the products they sell for a reasonable amount of time after they sell them. That last point is the one that will take the longest. I want to see a track record spanning multiple years, of the company not loving over customers who just bought a product they were marketing and selling. Even if that product has been on sale for a while. It's as easy as openly giving honest information about when a given product will be obsoleted by rules changes or dropping a game. E.g., if you sell me a model for a game, and you already know internally you'll be dropping support for that model in the next version of that game which is coming out in a few months, you should inform me of that so I can make a good decision about whether or not to buy it. GW has made substantial improvements over the last two years but they're not yet at a point where the company should be considered trustworthy, and the rules for their games are still sub-par.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
fnordcircle posted:Mantic's KS addiction is killing their retail presence. My store stocked a poo poo ton of Mantic and it doesn't sell because everyone who wants Mantic stuff is buying it via KS and everyone else is just bringing proxies. It's a tough catch-22, though, right? Two years ago, Mantic was a very small company still. Most of the product they've come out with since then couldn't have happened without kickstarter giving them the up-front funds needed to create major new lines of minis. They could have been like Osprey, producing Kings of War II and other rulebooks with no model support, but then they'd still be the size of Osprey, have a similarly tiny market share, and most importantly, would have missed out on the huge opportunity presented by the killing of Warhammer Fantasy 8th. But now they need stores, because the games can't sustain themselves without being regularly played, and in-store gaming spaces sure seem to be essential to that. At least in the US, where gaming clubs are much less common than they are in the UK. But why would a retailer stock their stuff, if the most dedicated core players of those games already got all their stuff at a steep discount? I think Mantic does need to dial back on the kickstarters now, they're probably big enough to be able to self-fund new product lines from the profits on existing sales. But I can understand why they'd still go back to that well, especially given that it continues to provide big chunks of funding.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
GW is less bad than they used to be. I don't think the thread consensus on that point has actually changed noticeably for months, there's just been a concerted effort to insist that the death thread rabidly hates GW.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
w00tmonger posted:Pretty sure they're still going to implode unless they start pulling in new nerds. I feel like they've been milking the same few whales for years now, and their customer base is only so healthy This is a reasonable story that is severely undermined by the company's financial reports.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
No you see GW with its one-man no-gaming-space kiosk "stores" that close for lunch are good and cool, they have to be, because GW is good now.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
It's because of momentum and tradition. But also because, to the extent their stores outcompete and push out other game stores that might sell GW products, they can prevent customers from having access to discounts on their own products. They capture full RRP on every item sold both through their webstore and through their physical locations, while competing brick & mortar stores and online stores can cut their own margins to sell discounted product. Famously, GW never puts anything on sale, ever, and they have used every tactic available to try to prevent their own partners - indie stores that sell GW products, which they call "independent stockists" - from undercutting their RRPs. However, the law is on the side of the stockists, so those discounts are always available. But GW has generally been able to at least prevent retailers from advertising discounts. I think someone mentioned recently that that might be going away soon? Not sure. The funny part is, by alienating former customers, they ensure a steady supply of their products at steep discount on eBay, which undercuts even their independent stockists, who then have less of a reason to bother to stock GW products. This happens every time a bunch of customers get pissed off because their faction gets an update that makes it suck, their game gets an update with bad rules, their models get obsoleted, etc. and it's always amazing to see.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:BTW for anyone in the US, miniatures market now has GW products for some %discount if you feel the need. There have always been several online retailers offering a blanket discount on GW products. The difference here is only that miniatures market is now putting the discount on their web store pages, which previously would have violated GW's TOS. If GW have relaxed their TOS, that's good news and another sign that the company is... well, not good, but no worse in this respect than other game companies, because this really is the bare minimum bar for not being assholes to their third-party retailers.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:These guys just look like they're floating around waiting for something to happen. Accurately representing what the figures would be doing during 95% of the playtime of a game of Warhammer 40k. IMO more of the models should look like they're just standing around bored, waiting for something to happen.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
I'm the decapitated kitten head
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Translation: "We're looking to cut costs by getting fans to work for free. We'll give you some token presents we already have lying around to make it seem like you're not working for free. Must be extremely good at your work despite not being paid. Must meet deadlines even though you have no employment contract. Only the five best volunteers will be given the enormous privilege of giving away your labor, free, to a publicly held for-profit company that has no debts, millions of pounds in cash, and has been showing year-on-year growth in profits lately!"
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
GW is cool, and good
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Thirsty Dog posted:On a 6, this happens! With this piece of armour, roll a die! With this squad, roll these dice! This design approach has been working for Games Workshop for 30 years. It's the ingrained reflexive choice for every game mechanic. The surprise is the rare occasion where they do something different.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Irate Tree posted:From the bad thread. I'm the blue robot's tiny, tiny toes
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Innovation is a good word because it implies the borrowing and iterative nature of improvement that is the reality of almost all creative processes, while invention does not. GW has innovated at times. Many younger companies have borrowed from GW as part of an innovation. A frequent complaint about today's GW is that it doesn't take advantage of modern developments in game design, which is basically saying GW is failing to intelligently borrow from others. There is a thin line between (good) innovating from others' examples, and (bad) ripping off others' work to steal the profits they deserve for their efforts; but it behooves game companies to tread that line.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
This is still the 'complain about GW' thread, isn't it? Why complain about complaining about GW, in the complaining about GW thread? I still really don't understand the motivation for that. If this isn't the 'complain about GW' thread any more, then I guess I don't know where I am
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
berzerkmonkey posted:Dude, come on. All companies treat their customers with very little respect. Demonstratably not true. I'm sorry you buy a lot of crappy products from bad companies but there are companies that sell quality products and treat their customers with respect. quote:This is a true statement. But it happened. Move on. Please tell us the exact statute of limitations on complaining about things, so we can make sure to stop talking about something dumb once the time limit is expired, thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
I think GW is going to sell lots and lots of their stupidly overpriced rules that should be free, so from GW's perspective they're pricing it perfectly (pricing based on what the market will bear). The criticism for the high price therefore should land squarely on the people paying it. Bearing in mind that as a publicly held company, GW has a responsibility to its shareholders to maximize revenue.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Yeah I have no opinion on SW:A's rules, I haven't read them or whatever, but one of my first complaints about GW back int he first iteration of the death thread was their bizarre allergy to having a straightforward entry point to the game. SW:A is long overdue but it seems to be exactly what I was asking for.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
tallkidwithglasses posted:I think points costs naturally balloon because people want to stuff in all their toys while still including a complete, balanced army- it's not necessarily a "spectacle" thing or a "tactical complexity" thing. I only really play 30k but some of my closest and most enjoyable games came at 1500 points- we had enough points to include a complete balanced force or a viable skew, but you can't cover all your bases and also stuff in a primarch or whatever. Yup I think it's mostly this. I've spent money on all these different units and spent a lot more time painting them up, of course I want to play in a game where I can bring them all out on the table at once! If you only play twice a year, even more so.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Bistromatic posted:Eh, i've never been a fan of super large games. Even if i get to play rarely i'd rather have two short games at a size where the system shines than one giant slog. Oh I'm not saying it's a good idea to have these huge games. It's just a natural inclination when you've collected a lot of dudes for the game. The design problem then, might be offering too many different unit options for each faction. If your space marines only had maybe like six different possible units, you would maybe be less tempted to try to play a game where you have 150 models on the table.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
ElNarez posted:GW didn't have the forethought to not release books that would get completely invalidated by a new edition within the year. That kind of conspiracy is probably beyond them. "GW wasn't smart enough to not bilk its customers for extra money" is not a strong argument. I agree they're not likely engaging in a conspiracy to undermine the use of points, though. They're just bad at making good rules.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
what if a fabled japanese master smith used his centuries-honed skills to make a european-style bastard sword?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
anti_strunt posted:40K is not a very good system, but it is worth noting that it may not be as much a failure of mere design as a failure of a fundamentally impossible ambition. It's both. Because not only is the task very difficult or perhaps impossible, but the game has never been reasonably balanced, and the habit of tacking on new products with their own new rules designed to sell those products sabotages any chance it might have had. Throw in the over-reliance on randomness, fiddly true-line-of-sight, etc. etc. and you've got an overly ambitious game that is also badly made. 40k's a science fiction setting with magic that has gretchen fighting on the same battlefield as the living incarnations of gods. That's never going to work well, but if there is a company with the rules-writing chops to take on such a project, it isn't Games Workshop.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Ilor posted:The pre-measuring thing I go back and forth on. On the one hand, it makes Zone Of Control reactions WAY easier to figure out. On the other hand, almost every trooper is carrying multiple weapons with different rates of fire and range profiles, and there is something cool about eyeballing the table and making that bold call that yes, I think that guy is in flamethrower range, so I'll do that instead of using the CombiRifle. If you're right, awesome, you just lit a dude on fire! But if you guess wrong, you just gave your opponent a free shot. I kind of like that uncertainty in the game. The basic problem stems from the assumption - one which I agree with - that a person's physical abilities or lack thereof should have no bearing on how good they are at a wargame. Just as a random example, my mom has almost zero depth perception. She has no interest in wargames, but if she did, playing one where she couldn't measure would be a total non-starter. But even if someone doesn't have an actual disability like that, it's wrong to assume that everyone is on an even playing field (so to speak) when it comes to judging distances accurately. It's not just a matter of practice, either. So, when it comes to designing a game, I think it's better to just assume from the outset that you'll allow people to measure, and then build your mechanics around that in a way that still gives the players interesting and impactful decisions to make.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
Not "illegitimate," no. My mom can't play basketball either, but basketball is still cool and good. But I think if you have a mechanic that is unnecessary because there are alternative approaches, and also it gives people with a physical advantage a game advantage, then it's probably better to use one of those alternative approaches, yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
Ilor posted:Wow, terrible opinions - your mom jumps like a meth-fueled pogo-stick and basketball is neither cool nor good. You're making fair points. We're not all clones of one another, and we have natural strengths and weaknesses which will affect our ability to be competitive in any real game. However, I feel like we tend to make distinctions between physical and mental attributes, particularly with games; we usually distinguish games from sports, and while there are certainly games that have physical elements, we usually see those as somewhat distinct from the norm. But let's also be fair: I did not claim that prohibiting pre-measuring was "universally bad" either. I included it in a list of attributes of 40k that make 40k bad; it's part of a whole, not on its own a game-killer.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
FYI, cat update. Crash the cat got his jaw wires out yesterday. He's now basically ready for adoption - fully recovered his weight, growing fur in all the places he was wounded or had to be shaved for various procedures, pretty bored of being stuck in a bathroom all day every day, super affectionate and desperate for attention as always, and no longer a gross smelly mess. He's still an FIV+ cat of course, but he's no longer in any danger of dying and he's definitely going to make someone a great pet. If you know anyone who would take this cat, please PM or email me. I'm in the san francisco bay area and will transport him a modest distance but taking him out of state is not really an option. Here are a couple pictures of Crash from last week, enjoying head rubs. He has areas of fur above his eyes that were shaved in order to do surgery on his eyelids - they also trimmed his whiskers short - so that's why his face is a bit funny-looking.  DSC_0044.jpg DSC_0070.jpgThis has been your irrelevant cat update. BONUS CONTENT: Here is a young opossum who has started showing up on my back porch at night to eat leftover cat food:  DSC_0077.jpg  DSC_0018.jpg
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2017 18:38
|
|