Please don't sign up for Warhammer+

[HollowHills]

I'm making one last post and leaving it there as I feel this has largely run its course.

I hope in a few months time WH+ has proven a track record of adding regular solid content, includes more rules and gaming resources and the new aos app is a vast improvement on the old one. If that happens I will happily sign up and enjoy the content during my painting sessions.

For now I hope some of the discourse and backlash we've see here and elsewhere in the hobby sphere shows GW what they need to do to enhance their offering.

 

[Golub87]

Mods threatening me with ban over my "negative attitude". Same mods who have endorsed WH+ as a group.

Guess it is a great product after all. I mean they can't ALL be wrong, right.

Good bye, I guess I will not survive this injection of toxic positivity.

[Zappgrot]

I expect I won't  be getting WH + it just does not seem worth it. There are only 4 episodes worth of shows. No AOS app and the archive is issues i already own. Also  I don't like subscriptions to "services"to begin whit. If I am spending money on something i expect to get something in return and not just access. Or at least if it is an access service I expect to get overwhelming amount of content.  WH+ really doesn't deliver on anything IMHO. The only change it has is for me to get inrested in the Ork models since it is cool and I might just take the subscription to get him and then spend the 10 bucks on something so that is basicly just bought a cool model for 40 pounds but even that seems a bit pricey 

[Gaz Taylor]

1 hour ago, Golub87 said:

Mods threatening me with ban over my "negative attitude". Same mods who have endorsed WH+ as a group.

Guess it is a great product after all. I mean they can't ALL be wrong, right.

Good bye, I guess I will not survive this injection of toxic positivity.

Just for the record, I’ve not signed up Warhammer+ 😉

[relic456]

On 8/25/2021 at 4:03 AM, AaronWilson said:

As far as I know Warscroll builder will stay browser based and not moved into Warhammer+?

For now but you know it's coming. W+ REALLY pissed me off by killing the old AoS app, no way I'm going to reward that financially. You can play the game for free now, its baffling that they want to burn through good will this way. Why am I giving them any money if they don't respect the players?

[Greyshadow]

2 hours ago, GrogTheGrognard said:

At the end of the day this boils down to if you value Warhammer+ at $6 per month or not. Some will value it at $6 per month, some higher, and some lower.

Totally, the thing I want to watch most on it is the Age of Sigmar Battle Report. I've read that it is really well done. I am quite happy to digitally rent a movie for $7.50 so I may, at some point, subscribe and immediately cancel just to watch this and the Louise Sugden masterclass. (Louise is such an incredibly talented artist).

[AaronWilson]

6 hours ago, relic456 said:

For now but you know it's coming. W+ REALLY pissed me off by killing the old AoS app, no way I'm going to reward that financially. You can play the game for free now, its baffling that they want to burn through good will this way. Why am I giving them any money if they don't respect the players?

Well I don't know if that's coming or not but I've not heard any plans for it, even from the man who runs it. 

You don't have to give them your money, not subscribing & not shouting about it on the internet is also a option. 

[Platypus]

Oops! Already did, for the whole year! 😁

[relic456]

10 hours ago, AaronWilson said:

Well I don't know if that's coming or not but I've not heard any plans for it, even from the man who runs it. 

You don't have to give them your money, not subscribing & not shouting about it on the internet is also a option. 

I think when a company does something you disagree with, a little shouting in public is a good thing. Not shilling on the internet is also an option, but I'll shout and you can shill and I'll buy you a beer if the warscroll builder isn't paywalled in the next year or so.

Edited August 27, 2021 by relic456

[Overread]

36 minutes ago, relic456 said:

I think when a company does something you disagree with, a little shouting in public is a good thing. Not shilling on the internet is also an option, but I'll shout and you can shill and I'll buy you a beer if the warscroll builder isn't paywalled in the next year or so.

Thing is you don't have to shout to make your voice heard; you just have to speak clearly.

Remember whilst a company is a faceless entity, its comprised of real people just doing their jobs. If you attack them for things they do, chances are they'll just ignore you. Think about yourself, would you listen too or respect a person shouting, screaming and insulting you for doing your job? 

Probably not, even if they have a valid point. 

 

Constructive feedback isn't about shouting, screaming or insulting. It's about saying that you don't like something. Explaining why you don't like it and perhaps offering alternative options. It's perhaps about bringing to light things that the company and individuals within, might have overlooked. Eg some have pointed out that the loss of digital media impacts those who have more limited vision. If you can gather together many people and deliver a clear message in a constructive and polite fashion you've FAR FAR more chance of getting an open reception to your idea. The company still might not agree or make changes, but they have a vastly greater chance of doing so (even if it might take weeks/months to make such changes happen).

 

 

[The Red King]

58 minutes ago, Overread said:

FAR FAR more chance of getting an open reception to your idea

I want this to he how it works but I think weve seen time and time again that companies will not dedicate any resources towards something unless it impacts their bottom line (I mean makes sense for what they are in society whether I agree with it or not) and that loud public outcry is often the ONLY thing that effects change when it comes to companies and their products.

[Zappgrot]

58 minutes ago, Overread said:

Thing is you don't have to shout to make your voice heard; you just have to speak clearly.

Remember whilst a company is a faceless entity, its comprised of real people just doing their jobs. If you attack them for things they do, chances are they'll just ignore you. Think about yourself, would you listen too or respect a person shouting, screaming and insulting you for doing your job? 

Probably not, even if they have a valid point. 

 

Constructive feedback isn't about shouting, screaming or insulting. It's about saying that you don't like something. Explaining why you don't like it and perhaps offering alternative options. It's perhaps about bringing to light things that the company and individuals within, might have overlooked. Eg some have pointed out that the loss of digital media impacts those who have more limited vision. If you can gather together many people and deliver a clear message in a constructive and polite fashion you've FAR FAR more chance of getting an open reception to your idea. The company still might not agree or make changes, but they have a vastly greater chance of doing so (even if it might take weeks/months to make such changes happen).

 

 

I personally don't think the decision making process in big companies is verry much emotion based.  I doubt gw's CEO is going to be like. OHYEA these fans where rude to me online. I'll show em. Works the other way around to of course. We will also never see him be like. OMG they are screaming at me online, quick change the strategies. As long as it's doesn't lead to bad optics or impacting sales everything we do or don't do  is meaningless.  

[Clan's Cynic]

Not shouting insults and replying in a constructive, long-form essay is obviously nicer, but ultimately volume matters more than anything. If a thousand people spam GW's social media with offence and frustration using vulgar language, it's probably going to be taken more seriously than ten people writing out extensive pages of well-researched and formatted arguments and ending with "but I still love your products and will continue to buy from you because I care!"

Look at the whole debacle about pre-orders. Would they have made the same promise if there weren't so many people shouting and complaining angrily on every Twitch stream and Facebook post? Probably not.

Granted, complaining on TGA - whether angrily or constructively -  won't do much either beyond perhaps giving people a chance to voice those frustrations (which is also healthy imo), but the idea that not doggy piling a company on their public-facing social media won't do anything is, I think, a bit naïve. Voicing those frustrations, whether well articulated or quite the opposite, does make an impact... so long as you're not alone in voicing them and are posting them directly to the company.

Just my thoughts.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Clan's Cynic

[GrogTheGrognard]

18 hours ago, Gaz Taylor said:

Just for the record, I’ve not signed up Warhammer+ 😉

Well to be fair to the argument made in the post you quoted you don't have to have signed up for W+ to endorse it. Like all those celebrities that endorse cereals or fast food joints. I highly doubt they actually go to a Subway to eat or wake up to a box of Wheaties cereal. Endorsements are separate to actually purchasing and using the product endorsed. 

 

1 hour ago, Overread said:

Thing is you don't have to shout to make your voice heard; you just have to speak clearly.

Remember whilst a company is a faceless entity, its comprised of real people just doing their jobs. If you attack them for things they do, chances are they'll just ignore you. Think about yourself, would you listen too or respect a person shouting, screaming and insulting you for doing your job? 

Probably not, even if they have a valid point. 

 

Constructive feedback isn't about shouting, screaming or insulting. It's about saying that you don't like something. Explaining why you don't like it and perhaps offering alternative options. It's perhaps about bringing to light things that the company and individuals within, might have overlooked. Eg some have pointed out that the loss of digital media impacts those who have more limited vision. If you can gather together many people and deliver a clear message in a constructive and polite fashion you've FAR FAR more chance of getting an open reception to your idea. The company still might not agree or make changes, but they have a vastly greater chance of doing so (even if it might take weeks/months to make such changes happen).

 

 

 

Personally I disagree with this statement in the current societal climate. You commonly and recently can see companies and websites that just reversed their decision not because of a well thought out and constructive piece of criticism, but because the outraged shouting got too loud for them to bear. It doesn't take them weeks/months it takes them days/weeks to change course. Honestly outrage is like ork dakka. If you have enough it doesn't really matter what target you were aiming at because something is going to hit the mark.

 

Now would I personally like it if companies were more receptive to constructive feedback presented in a calm and concise manner rather than outrage. You bet your bottom dollar I would. I just don't think that's the way the it works right now. Outrage seems to beat calm discussion 9/10 times.

Edited August 27, 2021 by GrogTheGrognard

[Overread]

24 minutes ago, The Red King said:

I want this to he how it works but I think weve seen time and time again that companies will not dedicate any resources towards something unless it impacts their bottom line (I mean makes sense for what they are in society whether I agree with it or not) and that loud public outcry is often the ONLY thing that effects change when it comes to companies and their products.

Agreed. The bottom line for a company is very very important. It's not everything, but its often a very powerful factor in many choices.

1 minute ago, Clan's Cynic said:

Not shouting insults and replying in a constructive, long-form essay is obviously nicer, but ultimately volume matters more than anything. If a thousand people spam GW's social media with offence and frustration using vulgar language, it's probably going to be taken more seriously than five people writing out extensive pages of well-researched and formatted arguments. 

Granted, complaining on TGA won't do much either beyond perhaps giving people a chance to voice those frustrations, but the idea that not doggy piling a company on their public-facing social media won't do anything is, I think, a bit naïve. Voicing those frustrations, whether well articulated or quite the opposite, does make an impact... so long as you're not alone in voicing them.

Just my thoughts.

Aye so why don't we work toward 1000 people supporting well written arguments with research, constructive feedback and all? 

In the end we might well assume the company will ignore our plea (remembering that communities online are tiny compared to the real market size). If that is the case why not at least work toward having communities that are welcoming, constructive and have a good atmosphere, even when being critical of GW or other things? If we can create a fantastic community and grow that community its more likely to have a greater impact down the road than one that's hostile, abrasive, insulting and more.

 

Because like it or not how we conduct ourselves toward subjects we talk about also affects how we conduct ourselves toward each other within the community. If you bring your hate for GW then when you engage in discussion with those who might not agree with you; you're far more likely to redirect some of that hate into how you write and thus (intentional or not) onto those you are talking with.

[relic456]

1 hour ago, Overread said:

Thing is you don't have to shout to make your voice heard; you just have to speak clearly.

Remember whilst a company is a faceless entity, its comprised of real people just doing their jobs. If you attack them for things they do, chances are they'll just ignore you. Think about yourself, would you listen too or respect a person shouting, screaming and insulting you for doing your job? 

Probably not, even if they have a valid point. 

Constructive feedback isn't about shouting, screaming or insulting. It's about saying that you don't like something. Explaining why you don't like it and perhaps offering alternative options. It's perhaps about bringing to light things that the company and individuals within, might have overlooked. Eg some have pointed out that the loss of digital media impacts those who have more limited vision. If you can gather together many people and deliver a clear message in a constructive and polite fashion you've FAR FAR more chance of getting an open reception to your idea. The company still might not agree or make changes, but they have a vastly greater chance of doing so (even if it might take weeks/months to make such changes happen).

 

 

If constructive criticism affected change the same way that online outrage and refusing to purchase a product do, then I'd probably agree. But coming from a corporate background, well reasoned criticism is often ignored because it isn't loud enough. On an individual level, sure it might resonate, but actually affecting corporate strategy? Nah, that's borderline naivete.

I appreciate the desire for constructive criticism to avoid negativity, but that's definitely at odds with changing the way things are.

Full disclosure, I did send well reasoned feedback through the appropriate channels (regarding several issues over the last few years). I don't think it changed anything haha.

[Overread]

As noted its not the volume of the outrage or the anger or the language used; its the amount of people that complained that sparked change. It's just a lot easier/quicker/simpler to get people to complain and to get worked up into a frenzy than it is to get them to take a reasoned approach - doesn't mean we can't try. And in the end we'll have a more welcoming community. Ever notice how many people don't want a FB account because of "all the drama"

[Gaz Taylor]

4 minutes ago, GrogTheGrognard said:

Well to be fair to the argument made in the post you quoted you don't have to have signed up for W+ to endorse it. Like all those celebrities that endorse cereals or fast food joints. I highly doubt they actually go to a Subway to eat or wake up to a box of Wheaties cereal. Endorsements are separate to actually purchasing and using the product endorsed. 

Just to be clear - I’m not associated with GW or get any perks or anything off them. I totally get what you are saying but I’m not endorsing Warhammer+. I do think it’s a good deal for all the stuff you get and I wouldn’t be surprised if it becomes the new White Dwarf. BUT I’m not signing up because I can’t consume it how I want to and looking at the components of the service, it’s actually quite messy (how many websites!?!). I do think they will fix a lot of the issues over the next few months.

Now looking at why myself and the other mods have been vocal about this is because we don’t want this forum to be the place you come to moan. It’s to enjoy your hobby and discuss it with people who also enjoy it. 
 

 

[Kaleb Daark]

they could have got a willing subscriber base if they just populated it with all the old fantasy rules and armybooks for a start.

leaving the animation aside, you mean to tell me that the amount of printed media they have couldn’t have all been uploaded prior to launch?

I know it’s in its birthing period but from what I saw at launch I’d like an early adopter sweetner really.  And as has been said, no fullscreen on animations and when disney are charging me not much more, I have some pretty high benchmarks for my 50 pounds.

I feel that many of the simple errors could all have been ironed out before launch and it makes them look unnecessarily amateur in their execution sadly.

It’s going to be interesting to see how they push this moving forward.  It’s bold and also potentially very very arrogant.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Kaleb Daark

[PrimeElectrid]

4 hours ago, Clan's Cynic said:

Not shouting insults and replying in a constructive, long-form essay is obviously nicer, but ultimately volume matters more than anything. If a thousand people spam GW's social media with offence and frustration using vulgar language, it's probably going to be taken more seriously than ten people writing out extensive pages of well-researched and formatted arguments and ending with "but I still love your products and will continue to buy from you because I care!".

I asked their social media about the FAQ a week ago and got blocked for it, so 🤷‍♂️

[CeleFAZE]

11 hours ago, Overread said:

Thing is you don't have to shout to make your voice heard; you just have to speak clearly.

Remember whilst a company is a faceless entity, its comprised of real people just doing their jobs. If you attack them for things they do, chances are they'll just ignore you. Think about yourself, would you listen too or respect a person shouting, screaming and insulting you for doing your job? 

Probably not, even if they have a valid point. 

 

Constructive feedback isn't about shouting, screaming or insulting. It's about saying that you don't like something. Explaining why you don't like it and perhaps offering alternative options. It's perhaps about bringing to light things that the company and individuals within, might have overlooked. Eg some have pointed out that the loss of digital media impacts those who have more limited vision. If you can gather together many people and deliver a clear message in a constructive and polite fashion you've FAR FAR more chance of getting an open reception to your idea. The company still might not agree or make changes, but they have a vastly greater chance of doing so (even if it might take weeks/months to make such changes happen).

 

 

Progress very seldom results from polite and well-behaved discourse.

Companies in particular react quickly to PR nightmares, and quiet disapproval generally doesn't give that impression.

[Kadeton]

1 hour ago, CeleFAZE said:

Progress very seldom results from polite and well-behaved discourse.

Agreed. Polite and constructive discourse is only effective after the problem is acknowledged and a genuine commitment is made to address it. Getting to that point, especially when the other party is doing everything they can to deny that a problem exists, is extremely difficult to do quietly.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Kadeton

[Sarouan]

3 hours ago, Kadeton said:

Agreed. Polite and constructive discourse is only effective after the problem is acknowledged and a genuine commitment is made to address it. Getting to that point, especially when the other party is doing everything they can to deny that a problem exists, is extremely difficult to do quietly.

Well, it also matters to agree about the problem existing. Because when your point of view is to be sure there is a problem and someone else underlines other facts leaning towards the problem not actually been a problem...and your reaction is "they try to deny that this problem exist !" without even looking at the facts themselves and questioning your first point of view...it also leads to agressivity instead of being constructive.

We saw that happening in the previous threads about fan animation and modders...a lot of people got carried away and didn't get the facts right while immediately being outraged at what they perceived GW was doing / "might be doing". And when I pointed some, I got attacked personnally by people who were absolutely sure GW was the enemy and thus anyone defending them was the enemy too.

In short : your mindset and how you see the world / others also influences how you act on the internet. Because it's always easier to be agressive behind the safety of a keyboard rather than in front of a real person standing.

Believing in something doesn't especially make it true for everyone...and people who don't agree with you aren't necessarily wrong in pointing some facts you don't want to see / aknowledge. The more adamant you are in a point of view, the more tunnel vision you get when judging on what you perceived where others stand.

For example, it's easy to say someone defending GW is a pro-corporate lapdog or someone criticizing GW is a GW hater. Reality is more nuanced than that, most of the time.

Once you aknowledge that...it's easier to tone down a bit in your interventions. When you think of the other not as an enemy but someone like you, you can empathize more easily as well. And that helps a lot to write something less...agressive.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Sarouan

[Kaleb Daark]

10 hours ago, PrimeElectrid said:

I asked their social media about the FAQ a week ago and got blocked for it, so 🤷‍♂️

Now that is poor.  Are we seeing GW returning to the Kirby days of might makes right I wonder.

[Kadeton]

26 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

And when I pointed some, I got attacked personnally by people who were absolutely sure GW was the enemy and thus anyone defending them was the enemy too.

People aren't angry at you. They're angry at GW, for a host of entirely legitimate reasons - personal, subjective reasons, yes, but that doesn't make them less valid. If you choose to elect yourself as GW's advocate and place yourself directly in the way of that anger, it's going to feel like people are attacking you personally. That's the inevitable consequence of making that choice - next time, unless you want to repeat the same experience, try making a different choice. Nobody is asking for you to try to change their minds, so they're unlikely to appreciate it when you do.

It's good to empathise. Try empathising with the people who are angry, and it will be much easier to avoid saying anything inflammatory that will make you an inadvertent target for their anger.