The End of Free Warscrolls

[NinthMusketeer]

2 hours ago, demonlizardfromouterspace said:

That is one point that is driving me a little away from AOS. It used to be a casual game with a relative lughtweight ruleset that is becoming more and more complex. With too many gimicks you can chose from for every army, Hero abilities, monster abilities, Command point management, etc.

While it remains too early to say for sure, the new battletomes are quite promising in how much bloat they have cut out. Like instead of giving 18 options of which 4 are relevant they just give the 4.

[RuneBrush]

15 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

GW doesn't need to make any of its profits via rules. It could easily afford to make all its rules entirely free, and it would still have world-beating profit margins - in fact, its margins might actually go up, since its margin on plastic is much higher than its margin on paper, so if people shifted money they currently spend on rules to miniatures, it might even work in GW's favor. GW certainly doesn't need to take away free warscrolls to try to drive its profit margin from 43% to 44%. There is making a healthy profit and then there is short-sighted greed that cannibalizes your long-term profits in favor of short-term ones, and this is tipping into the latter. It is so depressing to see GW going in precisely the opposite direction of where they should be re: accessible digital rules. 

This depends entirely upon by what you mean by "rules".  If you mean warscrolls and the core rules - absolutely.  If you mean battletomes then I'd disagree because GW employs staff specifically to create very high production quality books.  If GW did decide to make battletomes/army rules free then I'd expect to see a drop in quality and less financial investment in them - very few companies can justify an entire team of staff to produce free content.

9 hours ago, GrogTheGrognard said:

One quick question I have is are we sure that warscrolls are no longer going to be free?

In short - no, we don't know 100% for sure this is going to happen - it's largely been a calculated assumption that's been fuelled by lack of comment from GW.

[Backbreaker]

@RuneBrush Hi! You posted a mail to give GW's team our feedbacks, could you post it again?

I really think it could be important, for once I think we all agree on a subject and "maybe" we can do something about it. Take the time to write a mail, be polite and understanding, that way we might have an happy ending to this issue  

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

17 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

If GW did decide to make battletomes/army rules free then I'd expect to see a drop in quality and less financial investment in them - very few companies can justify an entire team of staff to produce free content.

Of course, how much financial investment goes into the battletomes is entirely under GW's control. If they are smart, they don't see them as a cost to be minimized, but rather as an investment into their model range, much like advertising costs. The recent news about he salary of GW rules writers don't fill me with great confidence that they are currently looking at rules the right way, though.

I get the concern that, if battletomes were free, we would not be getting the same amount of cool art and fluff in them. And I think that's a pretty valid assumption and cool art and fluff are definitely part of the appeal of Age of Sigmar. That's why I am personally of the opinion that GW should keep selling regular battletomes like they currently are for those that want them, but also offer a way to get just the mechanical bits for cheap (ideally for free).

[EMMachine]

I think one positive thing of the free Warscrolls wasn't even mentioned. If a 2 player box or Campaign book updated a warscroll of an existing battletome (or such cases as with the Tzaangors being in the Tzeentch and Beasts of Chaos Book), the warscroll in the shop was updated as well so you only needed to download and print the warscroll instead of having multiple books.

I have bought the books mostly because of the lore (and basicly paid 1,6 times the money for having the german book in it's printed version and the english one in the app, paying with Google Play).

If the new app is rules only and behind a subscription where I have to use bank data or creditcard information, the app is useless for me.

Going against the real "investors", the community that gave them money for their entire existence are worth more than those fakes that are called "investors" who buy shares ones and take more money out of the company in the long run, than they put it ( because they are only a very expensive credit that is never paid back).

Edited September 14, 2021 by EMMachine

[Nostrammo]

2 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

While it remains too early to say for sure, the new battletomes are quite promising in how much bloat they have cut out. Like instead of giving 18 options of which 4 are relevant they just give the 4.

35 Leaders and 27 Units say hello

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

15 minutes ago, Nostrammo said:

35 Leaders and 27 Units say hello

That's a problem unique to Stormcast, though. The only alternative would be to retire some fairly recent model kits. Or to combine warscrolls for models that were originally separate, I guess.

[SunStorm]

19 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

Going against the real "investors", the community that gave them money for their entire existence are worth more than those fakes that are called "investors" who buy shares ones and take more money out of the company in the long run, than they put it ( because they are only a very expensive credit that is never paid back).

I think you are confusing investors and consumers. You are also assuming that people cannot be both.

[EMMachine]

1 minute ago, SunStorm said:

I think you are confusing investors and consumers. You are also assuming that people cannot be both.

well, even consumers are investors because by consuming the product they are investing money into the company that the company can use.

I don't have a problem if employees have shares, getting a bonus when it was a good year or consumers who care about the product and most likely spend the dividend for more products.

My problem is that decisions are often made by those parasitic invenstors and speculators, who don't care about the product itself, never have bought anything of the company and only how to maximize profit in the short run, which will kill the company in the long run by alienating the consumers with rising prices resulting in firing stuff and closing locations to keep the profit on a similar level to keep the dividents high.

[NinthMusketeer]

36 minutes ago, Nostrammo said:

35 Leaders and 27 Units say hello

May have to deploy the Sacrosanct Chamber because that's a bit non-sequitor.

[SunStorm]

8 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

well, even consumers are investors because by consuming the product they are investing money into the company that the company can use.

I don't have a problem if employees have shares, getting a bonus when it was a good year or consumers who care about the product and most likely spend the dividend for more products.

My problem is that decisions are often made by those parasitic invenstors and speculators, who don't care about the product itself, never have bought anything of the company and only how to maximize profit in the short run, which will kill the company in the long run by alienating the consumers with rising prices resulting in firing stuff and closing locations to keep the profit on a similar level to keep the dividents high.

 

While both provide financing to the company, consumers are doing so in a risk free way. Investors are risk-bearing. There is a difference. (for more in-depth detail, you can read more in something like https://gcfp.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Customers-and-investors-a-framework-for-understamding-financial-institut....pdf)

I will concede that with certain new business models, like Kickstarter, etc that the line is blurred somewhat. 

 

What you describe as the parasitic investors, is a problem faced by any publicly traded company. It's up to the management to ensure that they don't fall in the way you describe. The fact GW have made plenty of good decisions that shows they aren't heading in that direction, is one of the reasons IMO that their share price has stayed so strong. They don't fuel growth by debt, they didn't take UK Gov aid during the lockdowns, eg furlough and any grants were paid back. They invest locally in Nottingham, maintaining and expanding the production base there. 

 

 

 

 

[RuneBrush]

1 hour ago, Backbreaker said:

@RuneBrush Hi! You posted a mail to give GW's team our feedbacks, could you post it again?

I really think it could be important, for once I think we all agree on a subject and "maybe" we can do something about it. Take the time to write a mail, be polite and understanding, that way we might have an happy ending to this issue  

Absolutely!  The most direct email would be aosfaq@gwplc.com - in the past they've asked for any FAQs, or feedback relating to AoS to be sent there

1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Of course, how much financial investment goes into the battletomes is entirely under GW's control. If they are smart, they don't see them as a cost to be minimized, but rather as an investment into their model range, much like advertising costs. The recent news about he salary of GW rules writers don't fill me with great confidence that they are currently looking at rules the right way, though.

I get the concern that, if battletomes were free, we would not be getting the same amount of cool art and fluff in them. And I think that's a pretty valid assumption and cool art and fluff are definitely part of the appeal of Age of Sigmar. That's why I am personally of the opinion that GW should keep selling regular battletomes like they currently are for those that want them, but also offer a way to get just the mechanical bits for cheap (ideally for free).

Think it was a different thread, but my own view is I'd love to see the rules and background/lore elements separated into two components.  That way the actual hardbacked book never goes out of date and you've an instantly more portable booklet of rules.  GW could then decide how to sell/give away each component so you wouldn't turn a profitable part of the business into an overhead.

[yukishiro1]

I meant all the rules - scrolls, allegiance abilities, everything. Obviously battletomes themselves wouldn't be free - they could keep selling tomes to people who wanted them, either with the rules integrated or as a separate document that's just full of only lore, pictures, painting tips, etc. But the rules themselves ought to be available free (or at very low cost, like a fiver tops) online as PDFs. Lots of other, much smaller companies than GW do it. It ends up being a good financial decision because having the rules out there easily accessible gets people involved. GW always says its a miniatures company, it's high past time it started walking the walk on that and giving its customers free rulesets that will in turn lead to them buying more of GW's core product. 

It's all just kinda futile anyway though - GW is moving in precisely the opposite direction from this at the moment, doubling down on charging even more than ever for physical books while eliminating the digital option. They obviously believe they know what they are doing and that this is the way to get to a 44% profit margin. 

Edited September 14, 2021 by yukishiro1

[NinthMusketeer]

6 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

Think it was a different thread, but my own view is I'd love to see the rules and background/lore elements separated into two components.  That way the actual hardbacked book never goes out of date and you've an instantly more portable booklet of rules.  GW could then decide how to sell/give away each component so you wouldn't turn a profitable part of the business into an overhead.

It is an idea that seems great on paper. Unfortunately, it causes some knock-off issues. Simply put a significant portion of wargamers won't buy them; they aren't invested enough in the lore to buy/keep separate books that are only fluff. BUT if said fluff is already included in the book for rules then they will read it because it's right there and they already paid for it. This creates a positive feedback loop (provided the lore is good) where people who might not normally have looked into the lore at all become interested in it and talk about it, feeding further interest by the community.

The reality is that people these days are tired. And with good reason; the 21st century has been a stream of ****** hitting the fan so much that a metaphorical poo-rain is standard living (to say the least). The energy to go out and initiate engagement in a tangential factor is not present in the same manner it was 30 years ago. But if that initiation is bundled in with the rules so people just have just basic lore in front of them without any extra effort? There is a lot more interest.

[Gailon]

2 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

It is an idea that seems great on paper. Unfortunately, it causes some knock-off issues. Simply put a significant portion of wargamers won't buy them; they aren't invested enough in the lore to buy/keep separate books that are only fluff. BUT if said fluff is already included in the book for rules then they will read it because it's right there and they already paid for it. This creates a positive feedback loop (provided the lore is good) where people who might not normally have looked into the lore at all become interested in it and talk about it, feeding further interest by the community.

The reality is that people these days are tired. And with good reason; the 21st century has been a stream of ****** hitting the fan so much that a metaphorical poo-rain is standard living (to say the least). The energy to go out and initiate engagement in a tangential factor is not present in the same manner it was 30 years ago. But if that initiation is bundled in with the rules so people just have just basic lore in front of them without any extra effort? There is a lot more interest.

This is exactly my play group's experience. We were all in for the rules and the game and awesome models. Then you have a battletome next to your bed or by your couch and pick it up and flip through it and read a story here or there and then talk about it with your friends and tell them it's awesome. Then you fit some light narrative setting into one of your games and the other player decides to also check out the lore that's in the battletome they already have for the rules and warscrolls. 

We are all more and more into the lore and now starting an elaborate Path to Glory campaign as a group, but there is no way any of that happens if the lore was completely separate, none of us would have bought any of it. 

[Joseph Mackay]

Apparently with 40K 2nd or 3rd edition, gw released rules only codexes. According to my local store manager, they were the worst selling codexes ever made. If this is the case, then gw will be reluctant to separate the rules and lore

[Noserenda]

There was a lot wrong (especially for new armies like Dark Eldar who basically had no real in depth fluff for years) with the 3rd edition pamphlet codexes but i dont think sales were ever an issue, if anything, anecdotally people bought a lot more codexes for armies they didnt directly play because they were so cheap.

[Marcvs]

app is available and it seems that warscolls (including from new bts) are accessible 🤩

[EntMan]

24 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

app is available and it seems that warscolls (including from new bts) are accessible 🤩

Any indication if this is free forever? I remember reading something about a temporary free beta version before it disappears behind a paywall.

[Marcvs]

6 minutes ago, EntMan said:

Any indication if this is free forever? I remember reading something about a temporary free beta version before it disappears behind a paywall.

I am curious about this as well. No post from WarCom yet so no idea

[The Red King]

From the accompanying email.

 

This all-new app is completely free while it's in beta, so you can use it to its fullest and help us make it even better. Once the beta period comes to an end, the app will become another awesome part of Warhammer+ along with Warhammer 40,000: The App, and loads more – another fantastic reason to subscribe to the ultimate Warhammer service.

 

I for one don't intend to cross my picketline on W+ just because they paywall something that used to be free.

In fact, they're basically ALLOWING us to be unpaid beta testers before they take it away and give it to the paying customers.

Edited September 15, 2021 by The Red King

[schwabbele]

12 minutes ago, The Red King said:

In fact, they're basically ALLOWING us to be unpaid beta testers before they take it away and give it to the paying customers.

Thats an added bonus for them, the main goal is to lure people in

[RuneBrush]

2 hours ago, The Red King said:

In fact, they're basically ALLOWING us to be unpaid beta testers before they take it away and give it to the paying customers.

One of the other reasons for releasing something as an open beta is it's almost impossible to test something like this on every available device going.  It means that if something major flags up, people are less likely to rant and rave on social media.  I've done it myself with various tools that I've written and it just helps to manage expectations and reduce disappointment.

[NinthMusketeer]

I would personally prefer GW, or anyone, run a free open beta, as that will help them fix problems for the full launch. Having a real hard time seeing how one would logically conclude it is a bad thing. Like, even if the app was going to be free this open beta would be the same.

[yukishiro1]

The issue isn't with the free open beta IMO, it's with it not being free after the open beta. If they're going to really go with this mad system of requiring people to buy the physical books to unlock the rules in the app, the app itself should be wholly free.