| Games Workshop Should.......; How could our favourite (?) company improve? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 11th February 2012 - 08:20 PM (930 Views) | |
| Grinner | 13th February 2012 - 04:09 AM Post #31 |
|
Dice Quartermaster
|
Agreed on all points made. GW have not been about the customer in a long time and since without us they are nothing, they really should try to remedy that. @ Hannanibal (however you spell it - sorry): The sad truth about getting our ideas and putting them into your weekly rant to GW is that they are unlikely to take notice as it comes across to them as just one angry rat's opinion. If the whole of UE and 3 other forum's member bases sent them similar messages at the same time though..... Nothing is going to change until it effects profits and it is not going to effect profits until enough people decide it is time to do something about it simultaneously, ie: boycott purchases for a while. @ Math: Are you for real about the GW/Blizz thing? I never knew any of that and my lack of faith in GW has just dropped again if it really did happen. Blizzard is by far one of the largest interactive games companies on the planet with HUGE player bases. I know from first hand experience that they also make an arm and a leg of their players.... When put like that it makes you wonder why GW didn't jump on the particular bandwagon huh? - As a WoW player (I know! I tried to quit) as well as a GW collector and painter I would have loved to have the opportunity to play the races and characters I have known and loved as models for years. Instead I get offered blood elves.... Nice work GW. My overall concern is that GW does not seem to get that while customers are still buying your products, that does not mean that customer satisfaction and in turn sales couldn't be improved. The fact remains that I will buy a box set once every few months (when I feel like my unpainted models are running a little low) and pay ridiculoulsy inflated prices for them, bitching and moaning about it all the way home from the GW store. However, if they listened to what their customers wanted and made and sold decent quality boxed sets and individual models people actually wanted and needed for their current armies (plastic slaves anyone?) at reasonable prices I would buy more products more often. A happy customer is a spending customer and better to have a happy customer spending less money more regularly than an unhappy customer spending more money but only once in a blue moon. Edited by Grinner, 13th February 2012 - 04:13 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Clanlord Trask | 13th February 2012 - 08:43 AM Post #32 |
![]()
Quiet, I'm plotting.
![]()
|
Army Builder was just the first thing off the top of my head. They have had some good digital products in the past, the previous worldwide campaign (Storm of Crowns, or whatever it was called) had a faily robust and well thought out online system. It lacked the greater fiction capacity like Storm of Chaos, but still, a nice piece of media. Storm of Magic, on the other hand, was woeful. Just a glorified way for GW to get more Facebook friends. I mean, just coming up with a concept at random, how about a system using Augmented Reality to allow you to play something like Warhammer Quest over the internet? With the other players adventurer projected onto your board via the screen. As for the issues of prices, product availability and whatnot, this comes back to what I said earlier. We the hobbyists are all whinge, no action. We want to be listened to, but we don't want to do anything about it. Since GW cut international online shopping out of the picture (like Maelstrom) I haven't bought anything GW. And I don't usually shop online, I buy from my local game store! But the sheer audacity of that particular move just boiled my blood. So while I am not buying anything GW, this isn't really making much of a statement because I haven't done anything to make them pay attention to who I am and why I am doing it. It is all a bit passive at the moment, which is just suffering is silence. But I least I can put my money where my mouth is (so to speak). |
![]() The Campaigner | |
![]() |
|
| snowblizz | 13th February 2012 - 03:07 PM Post #33 |
|
Ph.D.
|
// Absolutely true, the original Warcraft was initially planned as a Warhammer game. GW also turned down Army Builder as a licensed product, or wanted to charge too much for it. Can't recall. In both cases GW had the delusion that they could do it themselves. Both times they failed massively due to a fundamental lack of understanding what is important. I so want to tell about the day I realised GW's on-line game was doomed. Back in '01-'02 I think. I remember it so clearly still... |
| Snowblizz' Sneaky Skaven armyblog | |
![]() |
|
| Anholm | 13th February 2012 - 05:19 PM Post #34 |
![]()
|
IMHO the prices aren't that much of an issue (and this is coming from a dane where the prices are ~20% higher than in the UK - even in the GW shop in Copenhagen). It's all fine and dandy that you - the hardcore players feel that you would buy more if the prices were lower. Truth is that we keep spending because we love the concept and game. I personally feel fine about this because when I've built and painted my army as I like it - I will spend less than I am now. Which means they have to capitalize while I'm collecting - not when I'm playing. Some of you will probably suggest that the two aren't seperate, but I'm pretty sure that they are for many. Another thing that supports the high prices. Their product is simply too good. A bad comparison can be made with cellphones. Nokia's 3210 and 3310 lasted forever, but as cellphones grew more popular the quality of phones dropped, so that customers would not only want to buy new ones, but would HAVE to. Thankfully GW hasn't stooped to this level, where the miniatures and paint are poor quality. They had those horrible paint-jars with a screw-cap that dried out the paint faster than most emptied them. This they remedied, and the new ones are fine as far as I can tell. When all that is said, I do agree that they are missing out on alot of opportunities such as the digital media etc. Also the rape of White Dwarf saddens me. Rather than being a magazine to keep me in love with their universe it has become a hobby magazine that to some degree seeks to sell me their product. I remember when the magazine had funny month-to-month stories about characters, and I even believe the first Gortrek and Felix book was based on stories published in White Dwarf - or at least in a GW related magazine. Today I have no interest in White Dwarf - but if they brought back the fluff, I'd be buying it every month. Finishing this post I'll return to GW's price level, related to the missing fluff of White Dwarf. One thing I do love GW for is the low prices on their books. This is why I returned to Warhammer Fantasy after several years of only Blood Bowl. They could easily capatilize more on the books, and their limited edition trick seems to herald a new age where they will do exactly that - but for now I'm very happy about it. (not much about what I think GW should do, but reading the thread made me want to post this instead) |
![]() |
|
| Skaven Lord Vinshqueek | 14th February 2012 - 09:48 AM Post #35 |
|
Bunny ear says flop
![]()
|
Calling the current form of the White Dwarf a hobby magazine is, in my opinion, an insult to hobby magazines in general. Although this will propably have been management-inspired, the departure of Paul Sawyer as chief editor for the magazine meant an influx of 'lesser gods' and a change in the way the magazine presented itself. Now change in itself doesn't have to be a bad thing, but with that change came a certain amount of articles that should have never been published (as in, 6th edition tacticas telling you that units of 20 night runners were really good ), battle reports being dumbed down, and a big increase of focus on the newer products, showing us there are over a hundred pieces in a Giant kit. (People, as if I care...).A magazine such as the White Dwarf is meant to support the hobby, not (mainly) promote its products. In that regard, Games Workshop can do a lot here. First off, let (grand) tournament finalists/ winners play the battle reports. They did this a few times in the past and this gave for some very entertaining reads, as these people explain why they build the armies the way they do. They point out the 'flaws' in the battle plan(s) of their opponents and how to make best use of it. They really know how to get the optimal result... If the idea is to mainly promote a newly released army as a whole, then please, PLEASE, write down what works, what doesn't and why. If a model looks cool (and with the detail of the models Games Workshop produce, they don't really have to worry about that), you don't have to be ashamed if the ruleset that accompanies it doesn't really work that well. Be honest to your customer base and don't see them as gullable people that believe every piece of dung you put in front of them in your magazine. Really. In regard to the lay-out of battle reports, I also believe there are improvements to make. Aside from the 'turn 1-3' bits they began with, which makes it less about the tactics and more about the pretty pictures (from my point of view), I also began to miss a birds-eye view of the battlefield with the movements of units. No pictures to show all the scenery with arrows of movement through it, but a clear picture that shows who moved where. If you have those, readers can also better understand where units came from when looking at the photos that accompany the battle report... Yes, a lot of this means we return to the battle reports of before 2008-ish, but I do believe that as a read, nothing could be improved there. A re-occuring thing in the White Dwarf is the HUGE list in the back with a listing of all the stores, and minor bits on some events. Now in general, this is a copy of what can be found in a previous copy. I, personally, see that as a page filler then and once you start using those, my suggestion would be to move it to the website (which they already have) and use the freed-up space for more (and proper) articles. Then keep new stores or closed stores in the magazine, but this would require far less space then it does right now. I'm not going to touch all the subjects that I believe are wrong with the White Dwarf (as we don't want to make it all too negative), cause there are also some good things. Through promoting their products, they also improved on the way the tutorials look. Should they decrease the bit-mania, I think they do have reached a point where the painting articles are of good quality. Greetz |
In the Horned One we trust, all others we monitor. ![]() Skaven track record [W/D/L] @ 17th of August, 2014: BB 34/19/55; MH 9/2/6; WHF 17/8/30 | |
![]() |
|
| Skavendrool | 14th February 2012 - 11:44 AM Post #36 |
|
Chieftain
|
My opinion, having been playing Warhammer for some 10 years or so. White Dwarf. As long as I can recall, it has been about selling the miniatures. GW thinks of itself as a company that makes and sells minis - the game rules are a means to that end, and GW is the publicity organ to sell the minis. I don't subscribe to White Dwarf (buying the occasional issue second-hand), because I don't play 40K or LotR, and the magazine is too expensive for the very limited value I get out of the Warhammer Fantasy portion. I really liked Black Gobbo in this respect, because it cost me nothing, and was oriented more towards content than gamer-porn and fluff. Oh, and with all due respect, I've got to disagree with a prior post, I generally dislike the fluff/story pieces in White Dwarf - the GW writers aren't that good. Idem for the fluff pieces in the army books. What I wish that GW would do is bring back the bits store. I understand that it is a matter of economics (e.g., not happening), but I really liked being able to order bits to do customizing and conversions. The pathetically limited selection available now from the online store is a poor joke; and the online retailers endlessly regurgitate only the plastic kit bits. Better playtesting of the army books would be nice, but that is a huge job, and would require producing all of the updated books in a single batch. That would make a hash of GW's cash flow, both as to revenues and expenses, so again - not happening. Mostly, I think that GW does a good job with Warhammer Fantasy - I'm still playing it after 3 or 4 editions and 10 years. On the other hand, they don't get nearly as much money from me as they used to while the bits store was in operation. My money these days goes to eBay, to buy the bits and older minis. |
![]() |
|
| snowblizz | 14th February 2012 - 02:12 PM Post #37 |
|
Ph.D.
|
That's one of my "things" to. I don't expect it to be what it was. I'm a realist. But I think they failed in providing what was hinted at. There's almost no expansion of this, despite all the promise it holds for customization kits. I doubt it has expanded by more than 10-15 entries since they kicked in into gear. Instead they open the market for others. And try to sue their way out of their own obstinate failings. Finecast would offer an opportunity for this. But then they managed to bungle that so badly I don't see people trusting them again. I think they should keep that mind when making the range anyway. You can't get new elven horses from GW because they are on the sprue with the chariot. Clever positioning would open this up. Since individual plastics isn't feasible. And they shouldn't be so afraid of offering old items. |
| Snowblizz' Sneaky Skaven armyblog | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · General Wargaming Discussion · Next Topic » |












), battle reports being dumbed down, and a big increase of focus on the newer products, showing us there are over a hundred pieces in a Giant kit. (People, as if I care...).



