What could Games Workshop produce if they fully embraced digital rule distribution?

[Tetsugaku]

As for "most people who pirate won't want it unless it's free", that is, quite frankly, beyond nonsense. Pirating isn't just about free, it's about convenience. If not, Spotify would die instantly because a ripped track is both free of cost and free of advertising. But people are prepared to accept cost or advertising so that they can get what they want anyway, conveniently, and legally. Oh and they get a bunch of other features like playlists, new content suggestions and social apps inclusive in the 'cost'. Spotify isn't the only example - in 2010, circa 9% of the content on YouTube was monetisable (I.e. of professional enough quality to be brand-safe for advertisers). In 2011 that number jumped to 42% because major video content owners uploaded their catalogues, which they had previously not distributed digitally due to fear of digital piracy eating into offline revenue. Why? Because by making the content available for free in an environment which they could control, the content owners simultaneously cut piracy (why pirate when you can consume what you want, when you want and how you want, legally), whilst also opening up new revenue streams from video in-stream advertising and subscription services. Oh, and people volunteering up their most valuable asset -their data- which content owners can use to analyse their products (what works, what is profitable, what historic content pressed buttons with X target audience so that we can apply this knowledge to make our next project targeting X audience more profitable), and can use to target their advertising to the most responsive demographics. Furthermore, making content free actually grows their consumer base - having content online for free means that you lose DVD sales but your content gets seens by far more people, who can then be converted into repeat consumers or coaxed into buying smaller things. Making a smaller profit per person, but from more people, is more secure and potentially more profitable.


I have pirated in the past, as I bet most people here have, but I do not any more because I can get what I want legally, conveniently and for a fair price.

This - a thousand times. Thanks for summing it up better than I have been.

Re: micropayments - actually these are actually much better value than normal pricing models. A six pack of crisps is way better 'value' than a single packet, but if all I want is a single packet then buying the multipack is a waste of money. I've just spent £2 instead of 60p, saving 40p on buying each packet individually (i.e. via micropayments) but losing £1.40 by buying things I didn't want just to get the 'value'. Buy 2 get 1 free? No thanks, I'll buy one and save 50% on the final cost. Sure - if you want every article in White Dwarf and you buy each one individually then you deserve to be shafted! But if you only want something specific, paying the full price of the magazine just to access an article which you could have bought independently at a lower price is simply dumb. Marketing hasn't pulled the wool over our eyes with micropayments, it pulled the wool over our eyes with combi-payments by creating demand for a concept called 'value'. It is simply the subliminal process of replacing someone's concept of what they actually need, with the concept of what they could potentially get. Yes if they get more the incremental cost is lower - but the overall cost is higher and people accept that even though they don't need the extra deliverables, because of the sense of 'value'.

Again I could agree more - the opportunities to cherry pick just the things we want, rather than have things bundled together in the name of value (White Dwarf) is here right now, we just need to adjust the way we mentally value things. It's been less than ten years since digital purchasing has been in the mainstream, it will take a while.

However I think there are a couple of different products in here, trying to squeeze into one.

It's a bit muddled still (you should have seen the first draft) But I still think the service model is the best, I might draw up some diagrams to show how it could work.

The crux of what you're suggesting could run as either a local piece of software or as an online service via a client. However, if you run it locally then you either have to solely use it offline (making a bunch of what should be minimum-requirement functions redundant), or GW have to provide you with the ongoing online service for free. That's not going to work, if you sell at a fixed price but have no idea what your ongoing cost per unit is going to eventually be. Running it as an online client via subscription makes much more sense on the basis that anything anyone has paid for up-front remains their property after their subscription ends. So I buy a digital codex as normal, it always remains mine. I then subscribe to the online platform in order to use the optional and compatible services such as army builder & associated features, getting unlimited use while the subscription is active but can only use it for armies which I have purchased a codex for (determined at my account level, you need a way to link this to something which tracks your purchases, so that you can use the service from multiple devices even if your digital codex is only on your home laptop). Features which are not specific to personal property are equally available to anyone with a subscription (find a gaming group, share lists to social media, see Jervis Johnson's Kabalite list etc), but features which are directly related to specific races are only available if you have the correct codex (army builder, 3D modelled paint scheme planner etc). If it was 'subscribe, then have a free for all with all factions', it'd be popular but a commercial disaster! However, lists I build during my subscription are saved to my account and are accessible at all times even after subscription ends (I can't build new lists until I re-subscribe, but can see / print lists they already made legally).

I think that complicating the system makes the sell even harder, especially to none technical gamers (there seem to be loads, even on forums (not Warseer)). I see the two models, one, unlimited access to everything for a monthly fee, the second charged per codex. Both have access to all other tools. You can only access "your" codex through the system, but as it's ubiquitously available, that doesn't matter. If a new codex comes out to replace yours you get a 25% discount on the next one and lose access to the previous one.


I still think "see Jervis Johnson's Kabalite list etc" is the best feature in the whole damn thing.

I had more thoughts when I was reading your summary, but forgot now & need bed. Will try to update tomorrow (or on the plane Thurs, Norwegian airlines have free in-flight wifi!).

Look forward to them

[Aryllon]

Thanks for the compliment

I'll avoid bulking out this post with quotes. ChemDog made a point about micropayment pricing being a rip-off; that can be true but that's an issue with the pricing level not the pricing model. If micropayments were not preferable or convenient for some people, nobody would have pay as you go phones. The cost per unit is higher but people have more control over how much they spend. The important thing is giving people choice, and control.

Regarding the actual price level per micropayment, we have to remember that production costs do not diminish proportionally. There are fixed costs which remain the same, the magasine just benefits from economies of scale so only incurs those costs once across all the articles it contains. When releasing an article versus a magasine digitally, the unit cost for the article is going to be much higher than the magasine cost divided by number of articles (before even adding a profit margin).

I think that for the purposes of your project, we should avoid firmly stating that we don't agree with the pricing we assume will be applied to an imaginary product, and rather propose and comment on what sort of product and service we would like to have available in an ideal world. Then once a hard concept is in place it'll be easier to ask how would people like to pay & how much would they want to pay. Otherwise you're just making a rod for your own back

Personally, I think a web client is the way to go. It has to be paid-for somehow though, because GW unfortunately aren't in a position to offer an ad-funded model. You install the client, set up a login-based account, your pre-purchased codices (print or digital) come with a key to unlock each respective codex or armybook inside the system, you then get access to the additional services related to your books (armybuilder, percentages optimiser, guest contibutor lists, 3D paint scheme templates etc) until such a point when your subs run out, at which point you're left using your codices etc exactly as you were before you subscribed. Also, free access to a limited amount of functionality for a trial period would allow people to assess whether or not it's something they want, before they invest in it.

Hard products which people want to keep should remain as one-time purchases though (imagine buying an army then not being able to use it once your subscription to the codex expires). Same goes for back catalogues. All you should pay for is the right to use services which enhance your experience of the content and products you buy and keep separately.

Outside of user-specific codex / army related functions (dependant on what 'product keys' you enter inside your account), the platform can include a bunch of other services which are the same for every user (and you don't need to buy any codices to use them). Find a gaming group, see which factions are most popular in your area, sign up to tournaments, download themed templates for writing out your army list, vote on GW polls (should FW rules be allowed in GW tournaments, which special character would you like to see sculpted etc), that sort of thing.

I don't think uploading photos is necessary. There are loads of services to support this already, plus this functon's dev costs and hosting infrastructure & costs aren't going to appeal to GW. If they're going to invest in something, it either needs to be something of high enough value that they can charge for, or something that is low cost but enhances the overall product so that more people are incentivised to use it (a loss leader). A simple way for each users' profile to include a link to their Flickr pool would be enough.

[Sean Drake]

Hi

Interesting discussion and I really like your ideas but I feel that this would be something better pitched at one of the smaller or medium sized games companies rather than GW, ignoring GW's technophobia and the internet is a passing fad mindset I do not see any possible way GW would choose to price this service at a viable level as they still feel it is there god given right to make a minimum of 75% margin on everything they sell.

However if you could provide this service as an off the rack option to companies like Mantic,Wyrd,Privateer and even the smaller companies like Hawk games, Spartan games etc, maybe customised with the ability to remove features that were not needed to manage the cost of the service to both the company and the consumer then you may be onto a winner.

[COLOR=#ffffff]
I totally understand your point here - however I'm not aware of any service of a significant size that let's you do this? The much larger point of access rights & ownership is a fascinating one. I *do* think you should be able to resell software for example, something that's still a little up in the air (but assumed you can;t)
[COLOR]

Oh and if your in Europe this is no longer up in the air a legal precedent has been set that states the consumer retains all the rights of ownership on a digital product including the right to sell it if they so wish, and with unusual forethought or maybe just a knowledge of the Sharks that pass for publishers, it was also ruled that calling your product a service and stating that the consumer does not own it in the EULA or anywhere else does not stop it actually being a product and the consumer gaining all associated rights.

While this is all new and has only been ruled on in one specific case Steam have stated that this is something that they will address as one of the biggest companies affected, oh and there was apparently a great disturbance in the force around the EA offices like the sound of a million cut price hack lawyers and the directors grinding there teeth.

[Tetsugaku]

Aww we got moved - wondered why people stopped replying.
Warseer has way way too may categories!