PDA

View Full Version : Games Workshop & Computers



untimention
20-01-2008, 15:11
i picked up a PC magazine the other day because it had a huge warhammer picture on the front. Inside it was talking about Warhammer and the 3 releases for 2008 which even though i had thought about individually i hadnt as a collection. In 2008 we will see

Warhammer online
Dawn of war soulstorm which ive played the demo of and liked
Mark of chaos expansion ( cant think of the name at this second with mother hovering)

What does warseer make of all this ? do you think it will grow the miniature side of the business as people playing warhammer online will want to collect the models or even the opposite and people will stop collecting and play more online ?

lanrak
20-01-2008, 15:37
Hi.
I honestly belive that computer gaming and table top gaming appeal to seperate types of gamer.
Obviously some folk enjoy both.(Me and lots of others ...)

PC/console games ,give an instant real time gratifivcation of gaming needs.MoC, DoW, Fire warrior etc.

Now compare this to the comparative slow build up of a WH /40k army over about a year or three.
Its a bigger investment in time and money for an army that hopefully lasts you a life time.

I guess as I am old, I remeber whan table top gaming was the only way to play 'scaled down war' with your mates.
So spending a long time lovingly crafting an army to use in games with your mates has always appealed to me.

But for those with less patience , PC/console games,may seem better value.

Why bother with WH when MoC lets you custom build your own army for multiplayer games ?
Unless you love moddeling and painting its not realy going to seem worth it is it?

MutantMaggot
20-01-2008, 16:19
Lanrak: this is also the reason why people often don't play warhammer: computer games. ~This is more commonly felt around my age groups, but I suppose their obvious reaction would be: "why play warhammer when you can play Medieval: Total War?"

Of course, the obvious answer is that more satisfaction is gained from playing Warhammer with your own armies and individual opponents, but most teenagers in this modern age won;'t think like this.

Now I'll go and post the same in the thread about GW's finisncial situation. ;)

MM

kairous
20-01-2008, 16:57
battle march is the name of the MoC expansion, its also the title for the 360 version of the game, that includes content from both games, i wnader if DoW will ever get onto console format?

Some guy (UK)
20-01-2008, 17:25
Lanrak: this is also the reason why people often don't play warhammer: computer games. ~This is more commonly felt around my age groups, but I suppose their obvious reaction would be: "why play warhammer when you can play Medieval: Total War?"



Either that response, or:

"Its based on model soldiers? Oh right, cool." In other words, it's just an interesting fact, not something they are bothered about starting.

Or:

"Yeah, its got those knights and stuff from that Warhammer thing- heh, I did that years ago, when I was like 11!"
Again, no interest in the models- it is something they associate with young boys, surrounded by long haired geezers in an odd little shop.

Carlos
20-01-2008, 18:05
Gw would do well to buy up some game developers and expand its video games business. Relic would be a good start.

Both warhammer games have full backstories, artwork and concepts. This saves them a lot of time. A gaunts ghosts squad shooter, a larger dawn of war a la apoc. Specialist games still have untapped potential too. Imagine forming a necromunda gang via xbox live and fighting other gangs across the globe. It also provides them with a financial back up in case tabletops go belly up.

RobC
20-01-2008, 18:23
Gw would do well to buy up some game developers and expand its video games business. Relic would be a good start. GW isn't Microsoft: it doesn't have the financial clout required to just start buying up development studios.

Also, it isn't that long ago since GW lost a lot of money it had invested in the original Warhammer Online. I doubt they will be doing anything more than licensing to third parties for quite some time.

blongbling
20-01-2008, 19:56
they wont but a edevelopment studio...just licence the product and make pure profit

Aaron
20-01-2008, 22:41
I've always wondered why GW don't advertise in video game magazines. WotC already advertise Magic The Gathering in these publications and the cross-over between the two markets must be significant.

I can't wait for Soulstorm. Dawn of War is easily the best computer game based on GW IP.

thearchiver
20-01-2008, 23:19
In my wow guild which has around 60-70 highly active players and is raiding, there is all of one other table top player, yet atleast half of them have said they will check out Warhammer online.

With only one or two more saying the might look at BL stuff for WH books if they like the game, so I dont see it bring more players to GW games but it might increase their non gaming sales.

Mr. Smuckles
20-01-2008, 23:38
Tabletop is a social experience, whereas computer gaming is generally a solitary experience (no matter how many people are in your guild).

People who have the interest and time to invest in a social game like WH will probably be drawn to the game from the demographic of people introduced to the concept through the MMORPG.

dr.oetk3r
21-01-2008, 00:52
Tabletop is a social experience, whereas computer gaming is generally a solitary experience (no matter how many people are in your guild).



QFT........

Kulgur
21-01-2008, 02:18
Speaking as someone who's played Warhammer Online (ah the wonders of being a beta tester) I can see it being pretty popular. Given that quite a few 40k players my local GW seem to have started out with DoW, it can't be bad to have a bunch of Warhammer games coming out

Glabro
21-01-2008, 03:25
Why bother with WH when MoC lets you custom build your own army for multiplayer games ?
Unless you love moddeling and painting its not realy going to seem worth it is it?

Umm, because playing miniature wargames are infinitely more interesting and fun (The WMoC system has nowhere near the depth as miniature wargames) and varied (WMoC is limited to say the least) to play, as well as being a more social hobby?

untimention
21-01-2008, 07:23
they've had games in the past just never been as hugee as these three.

fire warrior, shadow of the horned rate, chaos gate, epic 40,000, rites of war... but these games set to appeal to a large audience and i for one who already has all the DOW series to date and mark of chaos will be buying all three this year.

Osbad
21-01-2008, 10:09
My understanding is that GW are now just pimping their licences as much as they can - a plethora of PSP 40k titles springs to mind. If there are any knock-on effects then so much the better for them, but really its just about creaming in a few extra quid by licencing product.

As far as GW are concerned there isn't a downside - greater exposure of their brand names amongst teenage boys which may or may not lead to a few extra sales, and a few quid in the bank from the computer game company. Simple as.

Carlos
21-01-2008, 16:44
GW isn't Microsoft: it doesn't have the financial clout required to just start buying up development studios.

Also, it isn't that long ago since GW lost a lot of money it had invested in the original Warhammer Online. I doubt they will be doing anything more than licensing to third parties for quite some time.

If they had an internal development team (even just one) that were fans of the tabletop games as well as video games (like me!) they might have a better run. DoW was well recieved but only because relic, a specialist RTS developer, made it.

Perhaps some younger blood, the sort of players who grew up playing Halo as opposed to doom (ie a console rather than PC-based team) might throw up dividends in future.

As daft as it may seem imagine some sort of Super Smash Bros-style game with characters from across the 40K range! OK, a fanboy only game but it might appeal to others.

blongbling
21-01-2008, 17:08
GW does have people on their team who advise on this, its called their licensing team...they help and advise the licencees on what to do

lanrak
21-01-2008, 17:13
Hi all.
To be fair I belive boxed games like ,Space Hulk , Warhammer Quest , Blood Bowl, Space crusade, HeroQuest etc, were much better at inticing folk into the 'table top gameing ' hobby.

These were simple introduction into the 'imagination' and 'social inter-action' which is the base requirment for enjoyment of table top wargames IMO.

But just using the GW IP in a PC/console game is a win win for GW, as Osbad said.

Dwarf Supreme
21-01-2008, 19:11
I'm generally not too interested in PC games, preferring tabletop games for various reasons, but I would LOVE it if GW came out with a computer version of Epic.

ankara halla
21-01-2008, 19:17
Like Final Liberation (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/finalliberationwe40000/index.html)?

RobC
21-01-2008, 19:21
If they had an internal development team (even just one) that were fans of the tabletop games as well as video games (like me!) they might have a better run. DoW was well recieved but only because relic, a specialist RTS developer, made it.

Hi not quite sure how your comment relates to mine, except possibly that you're misinterpreting me.

GW were very committed to the original Warhammer Online. Because they lacked their own development team, they essentially financed the original project through a third party, Climax. I'm not sure what exactly happened (use the Search function to learn some of the more outlandish/libellous claims) but, after several years of development and several million pounds of investment, GW effectively cancelled the project and wrote off the debt.

After such a bad experience, it's not a surprise that GW is simply licensing its properties rather than investing in any projects. The company simply couldn't risk losing that kind of money in its current financial doldrums.

Dwarf Supreme
21-01-2008, 19:55
Like Final Liberation (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/finalliberationwe40000/index.html)?

Yeah, something like that. I never even knew that existed, but I hate the Epic40k version of Epic, so that might have something to do with it. If Final Liberation plays like Epic40k, then I'm not interested. I guess I should've said if there were a PC version of the current incarnation of Epic.

ankara halla
21-01-2008, 20:01
Yeah, something like that. I never even knew that existed, but I hate the Epic40k version of Epic, so that might have something to do with it. If Final Liberation plays like Epic40k, then I'm not interested. I guess I should've said if there were a PC version of the current incarnation of Epic.

It actually played very little like any version of Epic :)
It was more or less a graphics paint job on a popular (and very good) turn based strategy engine that was used at the time in such games (most titles revolving around WWII).

But yeah, Epic:A would translate pretty well to computer/console.

untimention
21-01-2008, 22:56
i was thinking last night in bed about this topic... and im sure every1 has fort the same idea but alas i thought of it last night....

warhammer but on the comp... so basically you play warhammer, and choose an army list and choose all that you usually would and then you play it online against a friend or against a computer via campaign or quick battle...

you would have all the normal units in an army book and also have a button as a dice that rolls number/s

i think it would be fantastic... and it wouldnt take people away from the hobby because you would want the joys of having an army in the flesh... if not it would make people buy more as you would be able to playtest and see what works well without making a purchase

Glabro
21-01-2008, 23:22
It actually played very little like any version of Epic :)
It was more or less a graphics paint job on a popular (and very good) turn based strategy engine that was used at the time in such games (most titles revolving around WWII).


Are you sure you're not confusing Final Liberation with Rites of War?

ankara halla
21-01-2008, 23:50
Are you sure you're not confusing Final Liberation with Rites of War?

Yes, yes I am.

They were both based on SSI's engines and while Final Liberation (released in 1997) used an older SSI engine to do it's tricks, Rites of War (released in 1999) used the later one. SSI basically just had the one core (though updated over the years) for all of their turn based strategy games which were developed by various different companies.