In my last post I wrote about the disconnect between what Games Workshop and its customers.
I think this proves my point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cqFbTa5qOI
I can just about accept that there might be a market for a big book of Games Workshop photos, though it is a bit redundant in a world where the Internet exists, but every month? For £7.50?
Thursday, 30 January 2014
Friday, 24 January 2014
A crisis of their own making?
I have written quite a bit about Games Workshop, but I would actually prefer not to. Partly because it's a bit obvious and partly because I don't actually buy a lot of their models or play a lot of their games any more. Not because of any particular hostility, but simply because I have bought so many over the years that I am past the point where I want any more.
But there are some events that a bit too big to not comment on. Events like this. After some pretty terrible financial results which have seen Games Workshop's turnover and, more importantly, profit fall, 25% of the value of GW shares was wiped out.
The reaction to this news has been interesting, consisting partly of schadenfreude, partly smugness from those who expected this to happen sooner or later and a more moderated reaction from people who think this may be bad for wargaming in general or feel sorry for people who actually work for Games Workshop. There has been very little in the way of vigorous defence of Games Workshop, even though they are still making money at the moment and the supportive comments have been muted.
This feels like part of a trend. There has always been plenty of hostility to Games Workshop on the Internet, but in the early days it was matched by some equally aggressive support. But over time this support has transitioned from passionate, to realistic, to faintly desperate to what feels more like resignation.
Games Workshop has always been hostile to the Internet gamer community. As well you might if your attempts to run a message board turned into a deluge of criticism and complaint. But the official line, from both GW and its more aggressive supporters (now few and far between) is that the Internet complainers represent a vocal minority and can't be taken as representative. If you took the Doctor Who "fan community" as representative you would think Doctor Who was the worst and least popular program on British television and the only debate was over which era was the worst of all.
Nevertheless it is funny how the anti-Games Workshop are so passionate and vocal, while the die-hard fans are so quiet and introverted. And, as the positive voices have grown quieter, the hostile voices become slowly more representative. It seems that the gamer community's perception of Games Workshop is that it is:
1. Expensive;
2. Making products of declining quality;
3. Contemptuous of its customers.
Masterminis has published an interesting series of blogs on Games Workshop, its declining fortunes and Games Day events which include their thoughts on the recent downturn. They're all worth a read, if only because they're written by someone who has some understanding of how to run a business and isn't just spewing his ill-informed opinions across the blogosphere, but two comments in part seven really caught my attention. Both of them relate to UK Games Day 2013, the games day where Games Workshop didn't see fit to have any games. The first is from a nameless GW spokesperson and reads:
I think this phrase may be an official corporate response, because it was also used by Alan Merrett, in court, at the GW versus Chapter House lawsuit (the latter was accused of ripping of GW's IP).
The second comment is from Masterminis and reads:
I think in those two phrases we have the perfect encapsulation of Games Workshop's problem. I think that Games Workshop has a fundamentally different perception of itself than its customers.
As far as Games Workshop is concerned they make the best games and models in the world. They can afford to charge premium prices because they make a premium product and their customers know and appreciate this.
However, I think what really shifts Games Workshop's products, and the reason why they are still profitable even in decline, is because of the community of Games Workshop players. And I don't mean that in a "we couldn't do this without the fans", gushing, Oscar acceptance speech kind of way, I mean it purely pragmatically. Games Workshop produce products for games, the majority of their customers are gamers and they play a game that generally requires two or more players and that benefits from having a large player base. The easier it is to find players and the more of them there are the better.
As the largest war games company and the producer of the most-played games, Games Workshop has an automatic advantage. It is easier to find opponents if you play Warhammer 40,000 than for any other games, perhaps not as easy as it used to be, but still easier than the competition. Spend any amount of time on the Miniature Page and you will find discussions about find new players for a game or trying to persuade friends to try a new game. This rarely happens with Games Workshop. The player-base is established.
However, this advantage is an historical legacy, not a result of current policy. Games Workshop is essentially living off the legacy of decisions made in the 1980s and 1990s. Warhammer 40,000 is effectively the wargame equivalent of Windows; people use it because they feel they have to, not because they think it's the best. It also means that buying Games Workshops models is not necessarily and endorsement of them.
Most game companies recognise the importance of their community, which is why message boards are so common. You risk negative feedback from disgruntled players, but this a price worth playing to encourage a player-base to grow. And without a decent core of players a game is worthless, no matter how sublime the rules or beautiful the models.
Games Workshop's community largely grew before the advent of the Internet, so for GW it has always been a hostile force, giving voice to their critics. They shut down their own message board because it was so hostile, don't allow comments on their blogs and treat communication as a one way channel, which makes them seem distant and out of touch. They have chosen to treat online criticism as unrepresentative and have refused to learn any lessons. This isn't to say that everyone who complains about Games Workshop has a point, but when the same complaint is made over and over again, ignoring it is perverse.
For a long time Games Workshop has been coasting on their past success, assuming that the community would always be there because of the quality of their products. This down-turn may indicate the point at which their negative behaviour overtakes their positive past. If that is the case they are in a very dangerous position, because if the community contracts too far their advantage is lost. Games Workshops fall could be more rapid than its rise.
But there are some events that a bit too big to not comment on. Events like this. After some pretty terrible financial results which have seen Games Workshop's turnover and, more importantly, profit fall, 25% of the value of GW shares was wiped out.
The reaction to this news has been interesting, consisting partly of schadenfreude, partly smugness from those who expected this to happen sooner or later and a more moderated reaction from people who think this may be bad for wargaming in general or feel sorry for people who actually work for Games Workshop. There has been very little in the way of vigorous defence of Games Workshop, even though they are still making money at the moment and the supportive comments have been muted.
This feels like part of a trend. There has always been plenty of hostility to Games Workshop on the Internet, but in the early days it was matched by some equally aggressive support. But over time this support has transitioned from passionate, to realistic, to faintly desperate to what feels more like resignation.
Games Workshop has always been hostile to the Internet gamer community. As well you might if your attempts to run a message board turned into a deluge of criticism and complaint. But the official line, from both GW and its more aggressive supporters (now few and far between) is that the Internet complainers represent a vocal minority and can't be taken as representative. If you took the Doctor Who "fan community" as representative you would think Doctor Who was the worst and least popular program on British television and the only debate was over which era was the worst of all.
Nevertheless it is funny how the anti-Games Workshop are so passionate and vocal, while the die-hard fans are so quiet and introverted. And, as the positive voices have grown quieter, the hostile voices become slowly more representative. It seems that the gamer community's perception of Games Workshop is that it is:
1. Expensive;
2. Making products of declining quality;
3. Contemptuous of its customers.
Masterminis has published an interesting series of blogs on Games Workshop, its declining fortunes and Games Day events which include their thoughts on the recent downturn. They're all worth a read, if only because they're written by someone who has some understanding of how to run a business and isn't just spewing his ill-informed opinions across the blogosphere, but two comments in part seven really caught my attention. Both of them relate to UK Games Day 2013, the games day where Games Workshop didn't see fit to have any games. The first is from a nameless GW spokesperson and reads:
"Our Games Days are designed to allow our fans to do what the love most: Buying Games Workshop products."
"Our Games Days are designed to allow our fans to do what the love most: Buying Games Workshop products." - See more at: http://masterminis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/future-of-games-days-7.html#sthash.XW9cbEZd.dpuf
"Our Games Days are designed to allow our fans to do what the love most: Buying Games Workshop products." - See more at: http://masterminis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/future-of-games-days-7.html#sthash.XW9cbEZd.dpuf
I think this phrase may be an official corporate response, because it was also used by Alan Merrett, in court, at the GW versus Chapter House lawsuit (the latter was accused of ripping of GW's IP).
The second comment is from Masterminis and reads:
"...I enjoyed the show, because I could meet up with many new and long-time friends at our traditional Pre-GD-Dinner and during the show."
I think in those two phrases we have the perfect encapsulation of Games Workshop's problem. I think that Games Workshop has a fundamentally different perception of itself than its customers.
As far as Games Workshop is concerned they make the best games and models in the world. They can afford to charge premium prices because they make a premium product and their customers know and appreciate this.
However, I think what really shifts Games Workshop's products, and the reason why they are still profitable even in decline, is because of the community of Games Workshop players. And I don't mean that in a "we couldn't do this without the fans", gushing, Oscar acceptance speech kind of way, I mean it purely pragmatically. Games Workshop produce products for games, the majority of their customers are gamers and they play a game that generally requires two or more players and that benefits from having a large player base. The easier it is to find players and the more of them there are the better.
As the largest war games company and the producer of the most-played games, Games Workshop has an automatic advantage. It is easier to find opponents if you play Warhammer 40,000 than for any other games, perhaps not as easy as it used to be, but still easier than the competition. Spend any amount of time on the Miniature Page and you will find discussions about find new players for a game or trying to persuade friends to try a new game. This rarely happens with Games Workshop. The player-base is established.
However, this advantage is an historical legacy, not a result of current policy. Games Workshop is essentially living off the legacy of decisions made in the 1980s and 1990s. Warhammer 40,000 is effectively the wargame equivalent of Windows; people use it because they feel they have to, not because they think it's the best. It also means that buying Games Workshops models is not necessarily and endorsement of them.
Most game companies recognise the importance of their community, which is why message boards are so common. You risk negative feedback from disgruntled players, but this a price worth playing to encourage a player-base to grow. And without a decent core of players a game is worthless, no matter how sublime the rules or beautiful the models.
Games Workshop's community largely grew before the advent of the Internet, so for GW it has always been a hostile force, giving voice to their critics. They shut down their own message board because it was so hostile, don't allow comments on their blogs and treat communication as a one way channel, which makes them seem distant and out of touch. They have chosen to treat online criticism as unrepresentative and have refused to learn any lessons. This isn't to say that everyone who complains about Games Workshop has a point, but when the same complaint is made over and over again, ignoring it is perverse.
For a long time Games Workshop has been coasting on their past success, assuming that the community would always be there because of the quality of their products. This down-turn may indicate the point at which their negative behaviour overtakes their positive past. If that is the case they are in a very dangerous position, because if the community contracts too far their advantage is lost. Games Workshops fall could be more rapid than its rise.
Friday, 17 January 2014
But is it art?
Keith Stuart has a crack at the ongoing question of whether video games count as art or not in this piece for the Guardian. It's a good read, so feel free to take a break and have a look, I'll still be here when you get back.
Anyway, the debate got me thinking about whether, regardless of the status of video games, can a traditional board or wargame be considered art?
Certainly elements of them can be. A miniature is, fundamentally, a small painted sculpture and the construction of many game components can be considered artistic. In some cases, say a particularly finely-crafted chess set, all the physical elements of a game may be considered a piece of art in their own right.
But what I am wondering is whether the totality of the game, from components through to rules can be considered a collective work of art?
Keith, quite sensibly, avoids trying to define art in his article, that way madness and the bodies of more than a few philosophers lie. But, I'm going to have to touch on it at least if I am to engage with this particular question. Certainly there seem to be some common elements to almost everything we think of as art. They are creative endeavours, that express some idea of the artist. They may reproduce things seen in the world, but not exactly, in some way this representation is filtered through the perception of the artist, even if unconsciously. Even a child's crayon drawing reflects the way they view the world.
Based on this definition, then games are certainly art. But somehow, this definition isn't entirely satisfying. To my mind, truly great art has to be saying or doing something beyond representation. What that is may be quite vague, and sometimes the difference between art and not may simply be a question of setting (think of Tracey Emin's bed for example) and I certainly don't want to get into the business of trying to draw the line between art and non-art. But are there any examples of wargames or boardgames that do this. I think there are.
Monopoly, oddly, began life as a piece of satire, attempting to attack the concept of monopolies, a fact largely forgotten today. But, more recently, Terrorbull games have produced a number of games, available both physically and as print outs from their website, that use the concept of a game to make a satirical point. Sometimes these points are quite crudely made, but art isn't necessarily subtle.
Political and social satire seems largely absent from wargaming, but their is no reason why this should be the case. A well constructed wargame may teach us a great deal about the strategic and tactical decisions made by real-life generals (by the same token, a badly constructed wargame may give us completely the wrong idea). But it would be interesting to see if a wargame could be used to raise moral or ethical questions about warfare. I don't think such a game has been made, but that doesn't mean it one couldn't be made.
Of course some games are abstract, intellectual exercises that don't bear any relationship to anything outside of the game. I'm thinking of abstract dice games like Yahtzee or something like Carcasonne, Settlers of Catan or Alhambra which use their setting as simply a visual theme and don't pretend to realistically depict the activity they theoretically simulate. Can these be considered art, perhaps they can if the intellectual process makes us consider the world or ourselves in a different way.
Part of the reason the question of whether video-games count as art has been raised is because they borrow from so many disciplines that are considered art, film-making, painting, sculpture, literature, acting, while adding an interactive element. But while they may be less technologically sophisticated, traditional board and tabletop games still combine many of those elements. So if video-games can be art, then why not any other kind of game?
Wednesday, 1 January 2014
New Directions?
Although, fundamentally, an arbitrary mark of time, the new year is as good a day as any to reflect on every thing that has passed in the last 12 months. This being a wargaming blog, I suppose I should reflect on the last 12 months in wargaming, but, I'm afraid I'm going to drift away from that somewhat. There are plenty of better blogs to reflect on wargaming in general.
It's quite clear that my blogging has slipped over the last year and particularly in the last 6 months or so. At the start of the year I imposed a new rule on myself that I was allowed only one project at a time and that I had to finish one before I started another. With one or two small exceptions (one Father's day and one birthday present), I stuck to it. The end result was that I managed to finish my Chaos Dwarf army and get most of my Bushido Temple of Ro-Kan models finished. I also managed to finish a small Java project which stopped me painting for something like four months.
While I stuck to my self-imposed project rules, otherwise the year started out pretty much like 2012. Which is to say, I spent excessive amounts of money at a couple of wargame shows and pledged an excessive amount of money to Mantic's Deadzone Kickstarter.
The problem and advantage of sticking to one project a time was that all of this extra stuff accumulated and I wasn't able to do anything with it. Previously, I picked up and dropped projects all the time, painting a few models here, a unit there and I was able to fool myself into thinking I was making progress. By only allowing myself to start a new project when an existing one was finished, I proved to myself that I was accumulating models faster than I could assemble, paint or use them. Of course, I had known this for a while, deep down, but this proved it absolutely. What was more, I couldn't do anything with my new models until I finished what I was doing with the old, which meant, by the time I got to any of them, they had lost the appeal of the new.
This meant that I spent the latter half of the year dramatically cutting down on the models I bought. The last two shows of the year were more focused and a lot less expensive. Of course the arrival of the Deadzone stuff I pledged for six months earlier hasn't helped, but I am now painting faster than I am accumulating for the first time in, probably, ever.
Now, the question of what I want to do with the blog.
I first started this blog because I hadn't done one and because I felt like it was something at which I should have a go. Initially, I posted pictures of models because it pushed me to get on and paint them and because, I had been painting better than I had before and, frankly, felt a proud enough to want to show off.
Initially the blog was just for me, because it gave some focus to my hobby projects. All blogs are slightly narcissistic endeavours, we talk to ourselves and hope someone is interested in listening. After a while I decided I wanted a few more people to listen so I started posting more, advertising a bit more on the Miniature Page and Tabletop Gaming news. I took my inspiration from blogs like Quirkworthy, Grognardia and Fighting Fantasist, throwing out my opinions about wargaming, with a few retrospectives on old games and magazines, with a few pictures thrown in here and there.
The problem is that I have been running out of ideas. For a while I thought it was because I was working on my Java project instead of a gaming project. There may be some truth in that because while I am painting again, most of my gaming is limited to boardgames these days.
Unfortunately, I haven't reached a proper conclusion yet. The drawback of the arbitrary start of year review of events is that ideas, revelations and new directions don't fit the same time line. I'm not planning to give up the blog, I'm just not sure exactly what to do with it. I will still be painting and should be putting up a few pictures soon, I also have the odd opinion I would like to share and there's my White Dwarf reviews, which have been sadly neglected.
So, I'm afraid I don't have a bold new direction for the blog right now. I'm still figuring that out. But in the meantime, I will try to post a bit more and hopefully, what I post will be of interest to some people.
It's quite clear that my blogging has slipped over the last year and particularly in the last 6 months or so. At the start of the year I imposed a new rule on myself that I was allowed only one project at a time and that I had to finish one before I started another. With one or two small exceptions (one Father's day and one birthday present), I stuck to it. The end result was that I managed to finish my Chaos Dwarf army and get most of my Bushido Temple of Ro-Kan models finished. I also managed to finish a small Java project which stopped me painting for something like four months.
While I stuck to my self-imposed project rules, otherwise the year started out pretty much like 2012. Which is to say, I spent excessive amounts of money at a couple of wargame shows and pledged an excessive amount of money to Mantic's Deadzone Kickstarter.
The problem and advantage of sticking to one project a time was that all of this extra stuff accumulated and I wasn't able to do anything with it. Previously, I picked up and dropped projects all the time, painting a few models here, a unit there and I was able to fool myself into thinking I was making progress. By only allowing myself to start a new project when an existing one was finished, I proved to myself that I was accumulating models faster than I could assemble, paint or use them. Of course, I had known this for a while, deep down, but this proved it absolutely. What was more, I couldn't do anything with my new models until I finished what I was doing with the old, which meant, by the time I got to any of them, they had lost the appeal of the new.
This meant that I spent the latter half of the year dramatically cutting down on the models I bought. The last two shows of the year were more focused and a lot less expensive. Of course the arrival of the Deadzone stuff I pledged for six months earlier hasn't helped, but I am now painting faster than I am accumulating for the first time in, probably, ever.
Now, the question of what I want to do with the blog.
I first started this blog because I hadn't done one and because I felt like it was something at which I should have a go. Initially, I posted pictures of models because it pushed me to get on and paint them and because, I had been painting better than I had before and, frankly, felt a proud enough to want to show off.
Initially the blog was just for me, because it gave some focus to my hobby projects. All blogs are slightly narcissistic endeavours, we talk to ourselves and hope someone is interested in listening. After a while I decided I wanted a few more people to listen so I started posting more, advertising a bit more on the Miniature Page and Tabletop Gaming news. I took my inspiration from blogs like Quirkworthy, Grognardia and Fighting Fantasist, throwing out my opinions about wargaming, with a few retrospectives on old games and magazines, with a few pictures thrown in here and there.
The problem is that I have been running out of ideas. For a while I thought it was because I was working on my Java project instead of a gaming project. There may be some truth in that because while I am painting again, most of my gaming is limited to boardgames these days.
Unfortunately, I haven't reached a proper conclusion yet. The drawback of the arbitrary start of year review of events is that ideas, revelations and new directions don't fit the same time line. I'm not planning to give up the blog, I'm just not sure exactly what to do with it. I will still be painting and should be putting up a few pictures soon, I also have the odd opinion I would like to share and there's my White Dwarf reviews, which have been sadly neglected.
So, I'm afraid I don't have a bold new direction for the blog right now. I'm still figuring that out. But in the meantime, I will try to post a bit more and hopefully, what I post will be of interest to some people.
Friday, 27 December 2013
On price and quantity
The new Hobbit film is out and with it Games Workshop's latest batch of Hobbit miniatures. Though this feels less like a release and more a kind of grim obligation, like an annual visit to an increasingly racist elderly relative. The comments have been largely predictable, ranging from shock bordering on disbelief at the prices GW think they can charge for this stuff, to the increasingly shoddy finish of even the display models.
I'm not planning on wasting any time defending £15 price tags for finecast miniatures, especially when they're of Legolas apparently falling off a log, but the plastic boxes gave me pause. I can't say I'm much of a fan of the Palace Guard, who may or may not have beards, depending on the angle from which you look, but the Mirkwood rangers are actually quite a nice collection. It helps that they have plenty of detail and there are ten different sculpts.
As easy as...
At £25 for ten models they're comparable to most of Games Workshop plastic infantry boxes, which most people, including myself, tend to think of as over priced. But this price is pretty close to that of the new Malifaux starter boxes which are also hard plastic and which give you fewer, if slightly larger models. For a similar price you can get a Warmachine or Hordes starter box or a unit box, which, again will give you fewer models. A Bushido starter box will set you back £5 more and give you only five models, though these also come with cards. Turning to sci-fi, Infinity will give you six models for about the same price.
I pinched this image from the GW website. I don't think the set comes with a present
Of course, other than Malifaux, these are not hard plastic models, but I think we have moved on from the days when plastic is automatically considered a cheaper alternative to metal, at least for sci-fi and fantasy models. There are things you can't do in plastic, but then there are things you can't do in metal or resin, its about choosing the right medium.
I have long maintained that the problem with Games Workshop's pricing isn't the cost of the individual models but the number you need to play the game. If this was a Warhammer boxed set you would need two to four to make a decent regiment or which you would probably need four or five to build an army, plus a couple of characters. For the Hobbit/LOTR this box plus a couple of characters (preferably some left over metal ones) is enough for a decent game. Maybe add a couple more blisters and another box, but that's about it. But we're still only looking at prices comparable to most other Fantasy or Sci-Fi skirmish games.
Games Workshop's other big release if Warhammer 40,000 Escalation a supplement that allows you to bring the super-super-heavy vehicles previously restricted to Apocalypse battles to a smaller scale.
On the face of it, this is simply smart marketing. There's little point releasing a range of miniatures that cost between £70 and £100 plus and then requiring players to already have several hundred pounds of models plus a games room the size of a barn before they can even think about using them, especially in the run up to Christmas. Plus there's the fact that where once every army need a £30 - £50 model, now you need to double that figure.
However, there may be something more significant about Escalation, in that it represents the relaxation of a trend that has been going on since at least the release of Warhammer 8th edition. Since 8th edition's serious accident waiting to happen of a rulebook was released, GW marketing has focused on bigger and bigger games. A kind of battle-level scale creep if you like. White Dwarf battle reports have shifted from being 2000-3000 points to 3000 minimum and larger for preference, while featured armies and promotional materials have shown larger and large collections of models. Every time a new giant monster or vehicle is released a battle report shows at least two of them in action and this is accompanied by a one click bundle on the Games Workshop website. Seriously, is there anyone who really needs three Lords of Skulls?
I'm not sure if these two threads are really related, but it's worth considering that Games Workshop prices may only be considered unreasonably high because of the quantity you need to buy and that, for the first time in a long time, Games Workshop may be suggesting it might be okay to play with a smaller number of models. Food for thought.
Monday, 2 December 2013
Free Space
So games Workshop has started charging for the use of its gaming tables and painting space in some parts of the UK, which has sparked some debate. Not that they're charging out right. What they're actually doing is handing out tokens with purchases that entitle the bearer to a certain amount of table-time.
It's not really a new argument and has, in fact, been floating around for years, particularly in the US which has more independent game shops and, therefore, less central management dictating policy. One of the main arguments is, basically, that in the age of the Internet offering customers free table space is all well and good if they're actually customers. Everyone's heard stories of gamers who spend hours in game shops taking up space, before going home and buying everything online at a discount. On this basis the Games Workshop approach is actually quite smart, given that it rewards customers for being customers and, arguably, adds additional value to GW's products.
Still, I find myself looking at things from another angle.
For a start, suddenly charging for something, however covertly, for something that used to be free never goes down well. The longer something is available for nothing the more it feels like an entitlement and the more likely your former patrons are too storm off in a huff when it's withdrawn, whether or not this is reasonable. So you'd better be sure that what you're doing is going to do more good than harm.
But I think there's something more important here. Free gaming tables and painting spaces have, effectively, been Games Workshop's answer to a fundamental industry problem.
Thinking about miniature gaming, can there be another hobby with a greater disconnect between the way it is sold and the product you actually buy. What I mean is that miniature games (not just Games Workshops) are sold with pictures of huge armies of beautifully-painted models facing each other over elaborate battlefields festooned with lavishly constructed scenery. What you actually get when you open a box is several sprues of dull grey plastic or metal lumps. You then have to find the glue, paint, scenery, space and time to actually put all of this together. "Contents may vary from shown" doesn't really cut it.
Put another way, if when I was about to buy my first box of miniatures, my future self had emerged through the orb of time and told me, "It'll be two years before you're on top of the rules, five years before you paint a model you're happy with, ten years before you've painted a whole army, and twenty before you have a permanent gaming table and scenery that's in colour and not made from polystyrene packing and piles of books," I might have been slightly put off. Miniature gaming requires an absolutely huge amount of work before you can actually game as the promotional material suggests. Hell, it takes a fair bit of effort just to play badly assembled, unpainted models on the kitchen table.
Games Workshop's offer of free table and painting space was a small concession thrown at new hobbyists. "Don't worry about the scenery, or the space or the paint," it said, "come use ours. Worry about all that later. Just buy some models. Sit down here and I'll help you assemble them."
Of course, you could retort that the new regime still serves this purpose, a copy of Dark Vengeance, or Isle of Blood will let you plenty of table time. But it doesn't last forever and, given that most of Games Workshops target audience are at the younger end, there will come a time, or even times, when they may want to use some space and not actually have scraped together the minimum necessary to allow a token purchase. Is it really a good idea to send the message "sorry lads, fun's over, we got your money, no piss off and come back when you've got a disposable income."
There's a sense in which all of this fits in with a lot of Games Workshop's recent behaviour. Things like shutting down bloggers who leak bits of White Dwarf or running a Games Day with no actual games. The advantage of the GW strategy of doing everything themselves, is that the different parts of the company didn't have to justify themselves on their own terms. White Dwarf doesn't have to make money, it's a promotional tool. Games Day is for getting people excited about games, even if they don't necessarily buy them on the day. And free hobby space is about creating a welcoming atmosphere and letting people know there's somewhere they can do all of the activities that make up the hobby.
By charging for it, even obliquely, Games Workshop have made it that little bit harder to be a hobbyist and, given the business they're in, I'm not sure that's a good idea.
It's not really a new argument and has, in fact, been floating around for years, particularly in the US which has more independent game shops and, therefore, less central management dictating policy. One of the main arguments is, basically, that in the age of the Internet offering customers free table space is all well and good if they're actually customers. Everyone's heard stories of gamers who spend hours in game shops taking up space, before going home and buying everything online at a discount. On this basis the Games Workshop approach is actually quite smart, given that it rewards customers for being customers and, arguably, adds additional value to GW's products.
Still, I find myself looking at things from another angle.
For a start, suddenly charging for something, however covertly, for something that used to be free never goes down well. The longer something is available for nothing the more it feels like an entitlement and the more likely your former patrons are too storm off in a huff when it's withdrawn, whether or not this is reasonable. So you'd better be sure that what you're doing is going to do more good than harm.
But I think there's something more important here. Free gaming tables and painting spaces have, effectively, been Games Workshop's answer to a fundamental industry problem.
Thinking about miniature gaming, can there be another hobby with a greater disconnect between the way it is sold and the product you actually buy. What I mean is that miniature games (not just Games Workshops) are sold with pictures of huge armies of beautifully-painted models facing each other over elaborate battlefields festooned with lavishly constructed scenery. What you actually get when you open a box is several sprues of dull grey plastic or metal lumps. You then have to find the glue, paint, scenery, space and time to actually put all of this together. "Contents may vary from shown" doesn't really cut it.
Put another way, if when I was about to buy my first box of miniatures, my future self had emerged through the orb of time and told me, "It'll be two years before you're on top of the rules, five years before you paint a model you're happy with, ten years before you've painted a whole army, and twenty before you have a permanent gaming table and scenery that's in colour and not made from polystyrene packing and piles of books," I might have been slightly put off. Miniature gaming requires an absolutely huge amount of work before you can actually game as the promotional material suggests. Hell, it takes a fair bit of effort just to play badly assembled, unpainted models on the kitchen table.
Games Workshop's offer of free table and painting space was a small concession thrown at new hobbyists. "Don't worry about the scenery, or the space or the paint," it said, "come use ours. Worry about all that later. Just buy some models. Sit down here and I'll help you assemble them."
Of course, you could retort that the new regime still serves this purpose, a copy of Dark Vengeance, or Isle of Blood will let you plenty of table time. But it doesn't last forever and, given that most of Games Workshops target audience are at the younger end, there will come a time, or even times, when they may want to use some space and not actually have scraped together the minimum necessary to allow a token purchase. Is it really a good idea to send the message "sorry lads, fun's over, we got your money, no piss off and come back when you've got a disposable income."
There's a sense in which all of this fits in with a lot of Games Workshop's recent behaviour. Things like shutting down bloggers who leak bits of White Dwarf or running a Games Day with no actual games. The advantage of the GW strategy of doing everything themselves, is that the different parts of the company didn't have to justify themselves on their own terms. White Dwarf doesn't have to make money, it's a promotional tool. Games Day is for getting people excited about games, even if they don't necessarily buy them on the day. And free hobby space is about creating a welcoming atmosphere and letting people know there's somewhere they can do all of the activities that make up the hobby.
By charging for it, even obliquely, Games Workshop have made it that little bit harder to be a hobbyist and, given the business they're in, I'm not sure that's a good idea.
Wednesday, 2 October 2013
Unlikely combinations
Since I started my latest project, getting my Temple of Ro-Kan models painted for Bushido, I have been looking at some of Oshiro Model Terrain's rather lovely er... model terrain (the clue is in the name). If I'm going to be playing more of a game set in a kind of fantasy medieval Japan, I want my table top to look the part.
SO far, my Japanese-ish scenery collection consists of a handful of cardboard buildings printed from a PDF (I would credit the designer, but I got them from a link in a forum post ages ago and I honestly can't remember). They actually look very nice, cost very little and took, probably, no more than an hour to assemble.
I am generally very much in favour of cardboard scenery. I have a small town's worth of medieval fantasy buildings made from Fat Dragon and World Works PDFs. There is no way I could have afforded that many buildings made from any other material and building from scratch would have taken ten times as long and probably not looked as good. And, frankly, given the choice I would rather be painting models than scenery. Plus, cardboard is more sympathetic to buildings than more organic structures like rocks and trees.
But the problem is, once you've started with cardboard you can't really stop. Your cardboard town, with its cardboard streets, cardboard buildings, cardboard carts, market stalls and goods all look nice together, but once a plastic or resin building sneaks in it looks weirdly out of place. All bumps and grunge next to the nice smooth surfaces. It's like photo shopping an illustration into a photograph, both might look good but they don't look right together (unless the incongruity is the point).
So far, I have been looking at Oshiro's smaller items, grave stones, barrels and assorted brick-a-brack. But they also have a nice range of full sized houses, as well as some smaller, but still sizable items, like drums, arches and even an outdoor toilet. But the bigger I get, the harder it gets to mix them with my existing buildings. And I've seen the price of those Oshiro buildings. They look gorgeous, but my wallet can only take so much abuse.
So I face a dilemma. Stick with what I've got, replace it piecemeal as I can raise the cash or live with a mismatched 2D/3D world.
SO far, my Japanese-ish scenery collection consists of a handful of cardboard buildings printed from a PDF (I would credit the designer, but I got them from a link in a forum post ages ago and I honestly can't remember). They actually look very nice, cost very little and took, probably, no more than an hour to assemble.
I am generally very much in favour of cardboard scenery. I have a small town's worth of medieval fantasy buildings made from Fat Dragon and World Works PDFs. There is no way I could have afforded that many buildings made from any other material and building from scratch would have taken ten times as long and probably not looked as good. And, frankly, given the choice I would rather be painting models than scenery. Plus, cardboard is more sympathetic to buildings than more organic structures like rocks and trees.
But the problem is, once you've started with cardboard you can't really stop. Your cardboard town, with its cardboard streets, cardboard buildings, cardboard carts, market stalls and goods all look nice together, but once a plastic or resin building sneaks in it looks weirdly out of place. All bumps and grunge next to the nice smooth surfaces. It's like photo shopping an illustration into a photograph, both might look good but they don't look right together (unless the incongruity is the point).
So far, I have been looking at Oshiro's smaller items, grave stones, barrels and assorted brick-a-brack. But they also have a nice range of full sized houses, as well as some smaller, but still sizable items, like drums, arches and even an outdoor toilet. But the bigger I get, the harder it gets to mix them with my existing buildings. And I've seen the price of those Oshiro buildings. They look gorgeous, but my wallet can only take so much abuse.
So I face a dilemma. Stick with what I've got, replace it piecemeal as I can raise the cash or live with a mismatched 2D/3D world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)