PDA

View Full Version : miniatures or video games?



sebold
16-08-2010, 04:54
Ive been thinking guys, shoudnt GW concentrate more on video games like space marine or the 1st dawn of war? they surely make much more money than miniatures, but instead GW just gets a small share in the game for the IP while the rest go to Relic or some other game company, I dont wanna anger any miniature fanboys out there but I just think that GW would be more successful, make a whole lot more money and touch more people(like where im from,ASIA) if they used more impressive video games, i mean,think about this, do you think Blizzard would have been more successful with Starcraft and Warcraft if they made and started off the game as miniatures instead of video gaming? think about it guys, frankly, playing dawn of war and playing my favorite faction is a whole lot more fun and intuitive than rolling dice in imaginary battles with tiny 'action figures:D that ive just spent hundreds of dollars to build... I know its the hobbie of painting and fluffing that people are after but cant you do that in a video game? im pretty sure 'Space marine" will allow us to customize our own chapter and space marines, and seriously, it will be a whole lot more fun and profitable for GW. but thats just my opinion, please dont bash me for it:chrome:

what do you guys think?
would you guys take your time with a video game if it game you massive customization thats equal if not better to painting actually miniatures? plus, you will be able to share them online, display or actual battles

if so, what do you wanna see in the warhammer 4k games in the future? massive customization? online battle net and community? anything?

mrln68
16-08-2010, 05:05
GW should focus on the intellectual properties that they own. They should not try to make video games themselves.

By licensing a valuable IP, the money is effectively free. It costs them nearly nothing for a company like Relic to license and the money that comes back to them is nearly entirely profit. When you are actually in the business of making video games on the other hand - you have huge overhead leading up to a release that, to be perfectly honest is often unsuccessful. For everyone Blizzard there are 100+ who go bankrupt before going gold.

To give you an idea - last year, GW made 3.1 million pounds off their licenses (around 20% of there profits). THQ, the owner of Relic lost 9.6 million USD. THQ is currently carrying somewhere around $350 million in debt being supported by investors who are hoping that they one day might turn a real profit (as opposed to market share profits...which as we all know following the dot.com bubble are a myth). GW has some debts - but they also have actual real assets to offset those (75 million pounds in assets and around 18 million in depts). Most video game companies have almost no assets at all. The offices are rented. The computers are leased - even the furniture isn't theirs.

As far as being able to customize a video game - nothing like the real thing. I have a game room with rows of shelves displaying armies, models and other miniatures. I can sit back, have a drink and paint a few minis in an evening...with the computer OFF. And after spending all day dealing with computers - the last thing I want to do is go home and mess with them more.

The Marshel
16-08-2010, 05:29
Gw have got the miniature market in all but a full monopoly really. other companies and games exist but lets face it, Gw is well and truly on top of wargaming. With this in mind, why on earth would a company leave a familiar market that it is clearly dominating, to experiment in an unfamiliar market that thus far, it has simple allowed others to use its intellectual property in.

Computer games and wargames are entirely different mediums. If they were similar in many ways i would have completely dumped one in favor of the other years ago. If you prefer video games thats fine, but u'll be hard pressed getting any wargamers to agree with you that video games could every entirely replace the wargaming experience.

Friedrich von Offenbach
16-08-2010, 05:32
GW might sell video games quite well, but with the prices of the models being what they are, a starter player probably spends more money on a battleforce than on the a video game, not to mention a person expanding their army for the rest of their gaming life, unlike with a video game the only income is the one off sell.

Wolf Lord Balrog
16-08-2010, 05:52
I think the OP has a point, but only to a point. GW should spend more effort marketing and developing their IP in electronic media, but always in partnership with an established electronic media developer, rather than trying to do it in-house. That way they maintain their current position of enjoying almost nothing but upside from electronic development. And then I want them to hire more and better writers for both Warhammers so they can keep the damn rules and army books updated more regularly.

starlight
16-08-2010, 06:53
Both serve their purposes, the only real question is degree of emphasis...

the_gobbo_king
16-08-2010, 07:51
I think that this idea is nuts (no offence intended).

Video games, while appealing to a large target audience, only make money for a while, DoW:DC isn't selling as well now as it did when it was released, and is hard to find in a store sometimes. A tactical squad box, despite being around four years old (?), still sells pretty well, because players need more than one, and it is still relevant four years after release. Video games get superceded (sp?), and a new player has no need to backtrack with games.

Also, suppose that GW pushes itself headlong into the video games market. It needs to divert attention to it, therefore less miniatures get released. This would anger "miniature fanboys", and they may not even buy the game. Some hobby-ists do not enjoy video games or feel like the games don't represent 40k/whatever, and GW lose profit because they are not buying what is there in-stead of the miniatures.

Some would say that the new market (video gamers) would make up for these people who lose interest. 40k, even in gaming, is still a niche market, and very little outsiders would follow the series of games.

Games take time to be developed, and miniatures can be sculpted within a month, so if GW reverted to games, there would be less frequent releases to keep the hobby fresh.

Speaking of the hobby, it is one that is very "involved", taking time to complete an army is fun and the satisfaction at the end is great. I feel much more fufilled to complete a model than I do by finishing a video game. I reckon that this hobby is good the way it is, and should not be marketed to the masses by converting it to video game.

As stated above, though some of your points are valid, I reckon that your wrong. Don't take offence though, because I mean none.

Scott.

Gutted
16-08-2010, 08:34
GW might sell video games quite well, but with the prices of the models being what they are, a starter player probably spends more money on a battleforce than on the a video game, not to mention a person expanding their army for the rest of their gaming life, unlike with a video game the only income is the one off sell.

That isn't really taking into account the serperate business models or market size.

A video game will cost millions to develop and market but the material costs insignificant and the audience is significantly larger.

In contrast even with GWs market dominance it has a smaller market. It has smaller development and marketing costs but the materials are significant portion of the price of its product.

I could go on and on about this sort of stuff, but then end result, just because a Battlebox costs more doesn't mean it makes more money.


As for GW going into the industry, I rather they wouldn't and suspect they would be pretty bad at it. THQ on the other hand has been doing an excellent job with the 40k license, although a lot will rest on the upcomming MMO.

Born Again
16-08-2010, 08:35
No no no no NO. They most definitely should not. GW is a miniatures company. They sell models for use in tabletop wargames, and that is what their customers enjoy.


think about it guys, frankly, playing dawn of war and playing my favorite faction is a whole lot more fun and intuitive than rolling dice in imaginary battles with tiny 'action figures:D that ive just spent hundreds of dollars to build.

That's your opinion, but if video gaming is what you enjoy, then that's a whole other world for you to get involved in. It's a massively successful and lucrative industry, there is big money involved for sure. But it's not what GW does. Suggesting they should get in to it just for the money is like saying Ray Ban should make cars instead of sunglasses, because there's more money in it.


what do you guys think?
would you guys take your time with a video game if it game you massive customization thats equal if not better to painting actually miniatures? plus, you will be able to share them online, display or actual battles

Not really. It'd be a nice feature to match the units in the game to the same faction I play on the table, but it would never replace it in any way. I love seeing my army of miniatures arrayed on the tabletop.

if so, what do you wanna see in the warhammer 4k games in the future? massive customization? online battle net and community? anything?

I want them to focus on the things 40k can't give you. Namely, more 1st person type shooters would be good or, at least, not more strategy based games. Though many cringe at Fire Warrior, it at least gave you a view of 40k we had never seen before, as opposed to DoW, which are more like just playing 40k on the computer with some Warcraft thrown in on the side.

Wintermute
16-08-2010, 09:05
I'm moving this thread to GW General.

Wintermute

blongbling
16-08-2010, 09:21
GW's hedgehog concept is miniatures and that is how they will stay, this they have stated millions of times, they are a toy soldiers company, not an IP licensing company or indeed a video games company.

There is a certain amount of room for them to licence their IP as games like DoW has proven (biggest selling RTS ever at the latest check over the series now). GW would however be foolish to look to change their revenue stream to this and ignore their toy business, that is where the IP comes from and is driven from

Oglog
16-08-2010, 10:37
As far as being able to customize a video game - nothing like the real thing. I have a game room with rows of shelves displaying armies, models and other miniatures. I can sit back, have a drink and paint a few minis in an evening...with the computer OFF. And after spending all day dealing with computers - the last thing I want to do is go home and mess with them more.


wow you have really summed up what makes the hobby. Some computer games are enjoyable. Unfortunatley,addictive, time consuming, little rewarding RPGs annoy me and waste so much time. I'm glad that I am into Warhammer rather than addictive gaming.

simonr1978
16-08-2010, 11:23
what do you guys think?
would you guys take your time with a video game if it game you massive customization thats equal if not better to painting actually miniatures? plus, you will be able to share them online, display or actual battles

if so, what do you wanna see in the warhammer 4k games in the future? massive customization? online battle net and community? anything?

Honestly? It's a terrible idea.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong here but AFAIK GW have no direct experience in producing video games, even back as far as Heroquest on the Amiga it was licenced out to people who actually had an idea what they were doing. Just because something might make them more money (Or it could just as easily bankrupt them, since I picked up my first WD about 20 years ago more than a few pretty big computer games companies have gone) doesn't mean they necessarily should take that route. As has been said, licencing removes pretty much all of the risk.

I wouldn't be interested in the slightest with how customisable a game made the characters, it is still not going to be the same as painting, converting and actually holding a physical miniature and as for sharing online, I can do that anyway with a digital camera and online photosharing. If, however that is what you're into then tabletop gaming doesn't seem like it's for you.

Pushkin
16-08-2010, 12:32
I like computer games. a lot. But GW makes models and i want them to continue to focus on this. Yes i'd welcome GW games but they couldn' focus on games they'd be a disaster.

The Computer games market would be tough to get into. given that for the xbox 360 the top 3 online games in Halo 3, COD MW2, COD world at war and that there are new Call of Duty and Halo games out this autumn its pretty much a closed shop.

Even on the PC, there's an abundance of MMORPGs/ Real time strategy games out there.
Dawn of War 1&2 were cool but i doubt GW could base there buisness on computer games alone.

Looking forward to Space Marine and Dark Millenium, but looking forward to Codex Dark Eldar much more!

drmarco
16-08-2010, 13:00
No no no no NO. They most definitely should not. GW is a miniatures company. They sell models for use in tabletop wargames, and that is what their customers enjoy...

...Suggesting they should get in to it just for the money is like saying Ray Ban should make cars instead of sunglasses, because there's more money in it....




Born has nailed it - while we get that you like computer games, it's a totally different interest/hobby. I enjoy both - I like immersing myself in the imaginary worlds computer games create in a similar way to how I enjoy a good book, or the mythos of warhammer 40k...They all provide very different forms of escapism.

Nonetheless, a book is not a computer game, which in turn is not a personally converted and hand painted army.

Those that are interested in wargaming/painting etc are interested in the experience these activities provide. While it's great to see the setting of one hobby overlapping with another, it's an entirely different proposition to say 'that hobby should seek to exist, and the company that facilitates it and profits from it should become a completely different company'.

As many in this thread have made clear, GW - for all the negative bitchiness that people vent on forums - is essentially a company that grew out of a group of peoples love of wargaming and painting miniatures set in a fictional universe that's rich and diverse.

Is it good to see that setting explored, expanded on and developed in fiction, computer games, movies, t-shirts and cuddly toys? Sure - the more the merrier. But to state GW 'should' stop being first and foremost a market-leading wargames company would be, frankly, mad.

Marco

blongbling
16-08-2010, 15:04
the only time GW got actively involved in making a game was Warhamer Online and we all know how that ended up

Lordmonkey
16-08-2010, 18:54
If miniature gaming is the love of your life that you would give and do anything for, then GW IP computer games are the cheap whores on the side. :shifty:

chromedog
17-08-2010, 10:09
In my view, GW should concentrate on what they do best, and leave the video games to people who know what they are doing.

I'll let you know what that is when I figure out what they are best at ...

... OK, as far as I can tell, it's publishing lax rulesets, mediocre to adequate models and gouging its customers to the point where the next price increase will include "your firstborn's soul".

Bloodknight
17-08-2010, 10:24
A tactical squad box, despite being around four years old (?)

The SM tac squad set is closer to 12 years old, basically.


@topic:

9 out of 10 computer games are financial failures, they can cost millions and sometimes they horribly tank. A couple of those in a row can kill any developer, somtimes even publishers, and I'd rather have GW surviving (providing me with more plastic crack) and licensing out their IP to people who take the risk.


I know its the hobbie of painting and fluffing that people are after but cant you do that in a video game?

Not in the slightest.


think about it guys, frankly, playing dawn of war and playing my favorite faction is a whole lot more fun and intuitive than rolling dice in imaginary battles with tiny 'action figures that ive just spent hundreds of dollars to build

I enjoy those imaginary battles. I lost interest in DoW about half a minute after I was through the campaign and I don't enjoy multiplayer RTS games online where I have to compete against 12 year olds on a sugar high who I won't ever win against because I can't play computer games for 9 hours after school on a daily basis (you know, being an adult stops me from doing that anymore). DoW II I didn't even buy, and that's a first, I own every other computer game that was ever made using GW IP (starting with Hero Quest on the Amstrad CPC 6128).

gwarsh41
17-08-2010, 22:17
I know its the hobbie of painting and fluffing that people are after but cant you do that in a video game?


How often do you spend in the character creation screen of any given video game? I will back this up with.... in order to get anywhere near the same feeling as creating a 40k army for the table, you would have to model it in 3D, then unwrap it, then texture it, then skin it, rig it, and animate it. THEN put it into a game engine and program it.

You have 1 marine done. and you still cant carry it around and show friends.

Also, it takes a lot more knowledge to create a character in a video game than it does to assemble and paint a plastic kit. Which one do you think is better at getting rid of stress?

starlight
18-08-2010, 05:11
9 out of 10 computer games are financial failures, they can cost millions and sometimes they horribly tank. A couple of those in a row can kill any developer, somtimes even publishers, and I'd rather have GW surviving (providing me with more plastic crack) and licensing out their IP to people who take the risk.


Interesting how many of these 21 GW-based Video Games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Games_Workshop_video_games) (with two more in the pipe...) people have heard of...or better yet, actually played... :shifty:


GW should stick with licensing... :)

TheBigBadWolf
18-08-2010, 21:48
Interesting how many of these 21 GW-based Video Games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Games_Workshop_video_games) (with two more in the pipe...) people have heard of...or better yet, actually played... :shifty:


GW should stick with licensing... :)

That list is missing 4 more GW games by my count: -

Battlecars
D-Day
Tower of Dispair
Talisman

All on the Sinclair Spectrum

Khorney Joke
18-08-2010, 22:25
The REAL question is, if the OP feels the way the first post suggests, why does he play, and thus, WHY did he sign up on Warseer?

This has got to be trolling, right?

On-topic, no, no, a thousands times in a loud voice, no. Games Workshop has always produced miniatures, and hopefully always will. Maybe some sort of sub-company designed to produce a single game without too much investment, and that is a stretch. Basically, it's Games Workshop, not Games Development Studio.

sycopat
19-08-2010, 01:09
I love my video games, all stripes and types since I was tiny. I think it's a bad idea though.

GW is a miniature company with a good ip. Using videogames as a vessel for that ip is good marketing for the miniatures company, and easy money for them. GW is a small company though, funding a top tier videogame would consume more resources than they could afford, funding anything less could damage their ip and the company as a whole.

Moreover, I love my poor neglected miniatures collection more than it could possibly realise, and find my greatest personal solace in the deep concentration of painting, (even though I suck at it) and I find wargaming far more visceral and interesting than videogames, I guess to me pushing around action figures and toys is a much better way to spend my time than pushing around tiny coloured squares that don't actually exist, although I know that's a hobby that many, including myself, enjoy. ;-p

magath
19-08-2010, 17:37
I say GW should go for it. Lisence their IP out to someone who can do it justice and let the money roll in. They've got IP worlds which are just as in depth and as broad as, say, star wars and star trek, so it seems like insanity for them not to exploit it. As long as its not to EA games, they should be fine.

plus Call of Duty: 40k just has an awesome ring to it :p

Lars Porsenna
19-08-2010, 18:37
I grew up with video, computer, and console games within easy and constant reach, from the original Intellivision and Atari consoles, through the Nintendo, N64, Sega, and now both the Xbox and Xbox 360, etc. I have to say with a few exceptions I am dreadfully bored with video games, a significant change from my youth where I'd spend hours upon hours blasting zombies and demons with a shotgun. These days, however, I can't be bothered to play much (most of the games I've seen are dry, repetative, and sacrifice gameplay for graphics -- FREX I tried Dragon Age: Origins, and that lasted perhaps a couple of days).

That being said, when I paint a mini, or build a model, once I'm done I have something to show for my time, effort and work. I'm a huge HALO fan, but after blasting through those games, I don't have a lot to show for it, other than lost time.

For me, that is why I prefer painting tabletop miniatures, and the gaming is just cream on top. And that is why I'd never want to see GW change from this.

Damon.

Gazak Blacktoof
19-08-2010, 18:47
That being said, when I paint a mini, or build a model, once I'm done I have something to show for my time, effort and work.

This, times the fancy number on the side of your graphics card. Even after I play a game like fallout, europa universalis or dragon age I'm left with an empty feeling where the pride of a painted miniature would sit.

starlight
19-08-2010, 18:54
Interesting...


I don't get that feeling...but then I approach video games and miniatures from different expectations...

When I play a video game, I'm *expecting* it to be a waste of time. I play it to decompress, or to enjoy doing *nothing* for a bit. Occasionally (mostly on the replay) I'll try to achieve a certain goal (ie playing Deus Ex entirely non-lethal), but I know I can walk away and not look at it for months or years.

When playing with miniatures, I'm looking for the social dynamic of sharing some time with mates and having a laugh. Hopefully we have well painted fancy armies to show off as well. :)

Gazak Blacktoof
19-08-2010, 22:27
When playing with miniatures, I'm looking for the social dynamic of sharing some time with mates and having a laugh.

Interestingly enough I get this kind of feeling from playing games with friends, regardless of the gaming medium.

Lord Inquisitor
19-08-2010, 22:40
The obvious answer to the OP's question is why would GW go from being the biggest fish in a small pond to a very small fry in a very large pond doing something it is not in any way prepared or experienced for?

As for the more interesting subject of computer games vs miniature games. Sometimes these can hit very similar areas - I had a lot of fun playing Dawn of War against SmokeDog who I can't play against in real miniatures any more due to a rather large expanse of water between us. VASSAL actually took that a step forward and I enjoyed that - that IS one computer game thing I'd like to see GW look into. A virtual version of a warhammer/40k tabletop would be very appealing for those of us who want to play against people across the world.

In general though, I prefer computer games to be a solo thing and I go to them to really experience a story, or just detach brain and blow stuff up for a little while. It's an immersive experience, it is an escape from reality and mentally undemanding (although there are exceptions - puzzle games like portal got the grey cells in action). Wargaming really isn't immersive to me although pen-and-paper RPGs get close. It's a game and a mental challenge as well as a chance to socialise, although I've noted that most of this is typically limited to warhammer related subjects unless you can actually step away from the table to have a drink or something.