Misjudging the Market: AOS VS Star Wars

[Auticus]

Because of things like the 6th ed dark elves getting re-written or Battletech being brought back due to customer raging. It gives people hope that if they complain loud enough for long enough that there is a chance.

Otherwise - simply out of spite to get a rise out of people.

[Mr Mystery]

6th Ed Dark Elves?

I think that was more just 'lets do Dark Elves again. I've got a cracking idea'.

But whining anonymously online? The hell does that achieve? Write to the company. Get constructive.

[Houghten]

even more happy at the 'Rebels' wave. Very excite for that one!

I got so excited I couldn't wait for FFG to release their Gozanti cruiser and bought the Lego one.

[Auticus]

6th Ed Dark Elves?

I think that was more just 'lets do Dark Elves again. I've got a cracking idea'.

But whining anonymously online? The hell does that achieve? Write to the company. Get constructive.

The white dwarf article that amended the 6th ed dark elves came verbatim from the druchii.net community.

[Mr Mystery]

Ahh, gotcha. Though you meant the army book that came out after.

Had forgotten about that errata thing. About the only change that sticks in my mind was giving Executioners Heavy Armour, on account the models were clearly in full clank!

[Erik Setzer]

Well, since I actually explain my criticisms, they don't count as "whining," nor do I do it anonymously. I have no need to hide behind any screen name. My words are my own, I'll accept judgment on them.

Why do I criticize things? It's just part of who I am. I'll also say what I like, but I see no problem in pointing out issues. Honest criticism is key to any discussion. I wouldn't think it's a good idea to do so in any topic titled, for example, "What do you like about this thing?" In that case, saying what you dislike is contrary to the topic. The reverse is also true, of course. Outside of those limitations on the range of discussion, it's fair game.

I'd try to explain further why I'm so willing to speak critically, but I'm not sure I can understand it in a satisfactory way. That's not to suggest anyone is "stupid" or lacking in intelligence or I'm some kind of higher being or anything. It's just that different minds work different ways, and if you're already opposed to the concept of speaking critically, then I'm not sure it achieves anything to spend the next five paragraphs trying to explain the critical speaking. (After which, someone will be personally critical of my decision to not post in quick soundbites, which, strangely, seems to be acceptable even while being critical of a game or a company is not.)

I would comment directly to Games Workshop, but it's become a moot point, and that's the source of one of my biggest criticisms. They don't listen to customers, actively ignore them, and act like they know better, even while displaying an uncanny level of ignorance about the market they're in.

I will try to explain my reasoning for being so critical here, and hope I make it understandable... Simply put, I like 40K, liked WFB, and loved a lot of now-dead games. I've watched every game I love from Games Workshop killed so far and I fear the same will have to happen to 40K to try to salvage something of it soon. I criticize AoS because the sloppy job they did with it means it can't gain the foothold WFB had and the fantasy miniatures market is now more fragmented (though I suppose that's not so bad since I now have an excuse to try other games, but that such an action is necessary due to the people leaving behind GW's fantasy game is not a pleasant thought). I was, and I suppose still am, a big fan of GW and their games, and that's why I hate the missteps that I see happening, and speak about them. Anyone who's been in my apartment knows all the stuff I have from GW (and it'd be so much more if not for that bloody fire). I don't want to see it disappear. I don't cheer when it does poorly, I get angry because I know they could be doing better, but their current direction is to minimize the company as much as possible.

AoS could have been a solid enough game, if they'd just expanded the rules a few more pages to make them less ambiguous, and included point values, and even could have said, "We suggest you try playing games without points values, see how it goes!" The game can still be fun with people you explicitly trust, but for pickup games it becomes a test of who has the bigger wallet to buy the proper counters or the latest hot units and models. While that might seem like a good plan for bean counters, it will turn people off in the long run, and, aside from the damage that'll do to GW, it'll mean fewer people to game against (well, with those games... those folks might just migrate to other games).

I wish GW would pay attention to the market. Even if they'd still chosen to replace WFB rather than fix it, we'd have a less messy game with AoS.

As for the background of AoS... There's some good, some bad, some ugly. Unfortunately the worse parts tend to stick out more at times, like Sigmar losing his hammer because he's a fool *and* afraid of fighting a guy who's beneath him. Or that guy he's afraid of even existing, or some parts of it feeling like they're retreading the same stories from End Times. There's potential in the story, but it feels like they're trying to rush books out to grab dollars while people are excited, and that's causing some of the story to be redundant. But the biggest problem for me was that they started the game off with zero stakes. Unless they retcon it, the story is never going to be as interesting as it could have been. Right from the start we know Chaos can't ever win in this setting (despite winning with a lot less time to do it in during the End Times), and from here it's just Sigmar winning over and over until they try to "up the stakes" with Chaos regaining some ground, but then we go back to the problem where they told us Chaos can't win. Even if they temporarily "win," they don't destroy everything. There's other quibbles that are relatively minor (i.e. if it's been thousands, or even just hundreds, of years, why is Slaanesh still digesting the Elves, and when did Tyrion and no-longer-Malekith start looking for him? Bonus, if Tyrion needs Teclis to see, where's Teclis on that journey?).

GW screwed up. They can still fix it, but they won't if they surf the web and just see people saying "We love this game, it's perfect, nothing is wrong with it!" Bad enough that the BoLS main site reads like an over-eager paid advertisement (i.e. the claim AoS already has more background than the first few years of 40K), but when anyone who comments with a criticism is battered relentlessly, it sends the message that everything is fine and anyone critical isn't worth listening to.

And then we get games dying after 30 years. Because "nothing is wrong and nobody can say there is or they're a GW-hating troll!"

[Lexington]

To say it's a weak IP one month into launch is rather premature, no?

Not really, no; it's not the original Warhammer or 40K, able to flesh itself out over the years due to a lack of competition. It's 2015, the fantasy/sci-fi gaming space is well-explored and culturally hot right now. If you want to compete, you have to come to market with something that's immediately exciting and eye-grabbing and interesting.

Prime-era Warmachine is actually a solid example of how to do this right - it was released with a ton of visual pizazz, close associations to existing fantasy concepts that were tied together in an original way. It immediately drew audiences in, and the game took off like a shot.

AoS just...ain't that. The concepts don't communicate much, and have little underneath them to sustain interest. It's a pretty clear-cut scenario of an IP designed by committee, with far too much of it obviously existing only to satisfy a range of business objectives. Without GW and the Warhammer brand behind it, it's the kind of game universe that would be lucky to get the kind of interest Wild West Exodus is kicking up.

It's a weak IP, and the game's reception has reflected this.

[Mr Mystery]

Going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

Though out of interest, have you had a chance to read any of the short stories?

[Auticus]

Well to be fair, WM also came out at a time when GW's tournament presence was dropped and tournament players were livid. PP came along and said "yo tournament guys we built this professional sports-level wargame thats designed primarily for competition. Seeings how GW dropped official tournament play, and a lot of you translate that as GW does't want your business anymore, wanna play?"

If Age of Sigmar had been released as a competitive tournament game and marketed at tournament players (with points and all), the IP and story could have been about walking logs of pooh talking to each other set on worlds made of gumdrops and toilet paper and it still would have been flocked to, because gameplay and tournament quality is what many (most that I know) players judge a game off of - whereas narrative is sometimes considered but not a breaking thing.

For someone angry at AoS, the literature could be written by Tolkien and be a masterpiece and they'd still slam it as being horrible because they want it to be horrible because the game itself is not catering to what they want out of games.

Having read all of the fiction now, it isn't worse or better than a lot of the space marine novels they put out that people eat up. In fact - to me it reads heavily like a space marine novel except sigmarites instead of space marines. They even call themselves "brother".

[Mr Mystery]

I just found it to be bland and generic. It was a period when any U.S. created game always had Soviets or otherwise Commies as the baddies. But hey, that's different cultures around the world for you.

Sadly I've not taken to their aesthetic after that, so I can't comment beyond that experience.