Jump to content

Sleboda

Members
  • Posts

    3,366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Everything posted by Sleboda

  1. 2 books in under 4 years is pushing it. Anything more frequent unconscionable.
  2. No, but it is a discussion forum where we all express opinions and views. Is that ok with you?
  3. Wow. New Core Set now. Another new Core Set in under a year. That accelerates the planned obsolescence to crazy levels! Glad I'm getting out.
  4. Yeah, but Paladin is such a horrible Hearthstone class, nobody will care if he gets stolen.
  5. It will probably be the first edition of the game I skip. I have bought them all, but haven't not even played a game since they started card rotation. The idea of buying products with a known, built-in death date just two years into the future is extremely off-putting. Increasing the cost is a tough sell. Besides, I get my arena combat fix from the much better Super Fantasy Brawl anyway.
  6. I promise I won't get this thread derailed, but yes, decorative bases on gaming models really do detract from the game play experience, in my opinion. I, too, was playing back in the old days. Bases were (and still would be if I were king) Woodland Scenics fine ballast, goblin green, drybrush bilious green, edge drybrush with a touch of white added to the bilious, rim goblin green, job's done. Bases were/are a tool for holding up and moving models, not actual parts of the models themselves. In current AoS, I see the same "crime against immersion" with those absolutely insanely distracting 12 inch objective disks. It just feels to me like folks who use them don't really value the creative work that goes into making a table with terrain, placing lovingly painted models on that terrain, and the feelings of their opponents. That's enough on that, I suppose. Yes, those crazy Katakros-style bases are out of hand. I would really, really, really like GW to design those kits with an optional assembly that has zero base decoration. (Also, get off my lawn, you kids.)
  7. I appreciate the post you've made. I don't agree with all of it, but that's too be expected when talking about art. I did want to comment on this section above that I do agree with. I've been collecting and painting GW models since about 1985. For me, the "golden era" was filled with lead models (so easy to convert, felt great in the hand, didn't fly off the table when you turn on a fan), blister packs, and monopose single-part models. The Marauder Chaos Dwarfs and their Undead range are still some of my favorite models. Ah, glorious ranks of identical skeletons with scythes! Perfection. It's undeniable that the quality of the actual sculpts and castings are light years ahead of those times, but I agree with you to an extent that we've entered a bit of form over function era. These are, primarily, gaming pieces. Yes, of course people get them just to build and paint as well. Heck, I myself have numerous models I'll never use in a game. But GW would not be the success they are today if they were just a model company and not also a game maker. Modern GW models such as Katakros are marvels, but also very much leave the game behind, so to speak. It's just my opinion, but when a gaming model needs sub assemblies just to get the paint in certain places, and when the base is so decorative that you find yourself wondering how it moved all the same bits of scenery up the battlefield as it advanced, I think it's safe to say the model is overdesigned for what its purpose is. Again, my opinion. This is also true for non-centerpiece kits that you might need 40 of in your army. If I'm painting 40 troopers, I really don't want each one to have 5 pouches, 7 skulls, 14 gems (I'm looking at you, Eldar), and a zillion other fiddly bits, even if they do look awesome. Frankly, if a kit gives me the option to leave some parts of and still look complete and be functional within its rules, I'm leaving them off. Now, to the main topic. I'm willing to bet that that there are models out there with as much quality, or even more, than GW stuff. I just see comparisons like that as not particularly relevant. Fun to talk about? Sure. Maybe. Just not a "fair" fight to have. GW is limited by what they are. They can't really take a chance on one off cool things. That need to sell a ton of every single thing they make, and, importantly, it almost all has to tie to a set of rules. That's a huge limit compared to a small model maker who can just make the single most coolest awesomest thing ever, and then sell a file or a casting out of his garage with no overhead to speak of and no requirement to make it "fit" into anything. That freedom is huge. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons games like Underworlds and Warcry (and maybe the new Kill Team) are such great moves for GW. They still do have to sell a boat load of each kit, but the 3-10 models in them can let them experiment with new styles and designs without committing to a full range of similar kits for armies. Think of Molog's mushroom and stalagmite, for example. You don't need to commit to an army of similar designs, so there is much more room for taking risks there. So yeah, I'm saying that there probably are excellent 'others' out there, but I am not sure it's the right question. The "little guy" in any endeavor will always have the ability to one-up the giant on a one off passion project. That doesn't make the little guy's stuff better than the giant's. It makes one thing (or a few) he did better because he had the luxury of having almost no constraints on his creation. The gorilla simply can't shift downward to match him. Think, as a comparison, of the army painter vs. the guy who spends a year painting his golden demon entry. Of course the demon guy will be better, but we wouldn't just outright say he's better at painting than the army guy. The two are not playing the same game, so to speak. It might be better, in my opinion, to ask if there are any other similar manufacturers doing what GW does, as a whole, better.
  8. Good point. I used to be one of those "click now, learn later" buyers. Now I am a lot more cautious. Too many post-purchase regrets over the last few years. Reviews are useful.
  9. Maybe I haven't seen the right models, but so far not a single print I've seen didn't have striations, and that's a deal breaker for me.
  10. Interesting. I either own or have seen most of those. I disagree that their quality is the same as GW, but that's an opinion I suppose. As to 3D stuff ... meh. It's got decades to go before it can offer what is available in injection today.
  11. Genuinely curious - who? I get that on a personal opinion level, we might lie this or that model from Random Company better than X model from GW, but I get the vibe from your comment that you believe there are many ("ample") companies making ranges of models of equal quality for much cheaper ("far less") than GW. Who are these companies? I would like to check them out to see if they can offer the full hobby experience, at scale, that GW does at a fraction of the cost.
  12. Interesting side note from my days in GW trade sales. Our mantra (one of them) was "new customers are our life's blood." It's not unique to them, of course, and it's the most sensible thing to do - always be recruiting the next customer. New ones are totally untapped. That's all new money, unlike most vet customers. I will say one little thing about your quote. It's not their model to "burn" out customers. They would be quite happy to keep veteran customers (as long as they stayed actual customers, not ppl who already have all the models they want and now just talk about games), I'm sure, but they are not going to, and should not, focus much on them. There's no real worry of them ever running out of new customers, by the way. Have you seen all those annoying child-things people keep popping out at every increasing rates?
  13. I'm not skipping the rest of your thoughts as a slight. Much of what you said I think has merit, even if I don't agree with it personally. So, no offense meant for not going through the rest. If there's anything in there you would like to go into and talk about, I'm happy to revisit. That said, I do want to examine the above thought. While I understand that we all place value on things differently, and may not find personal value in a given thing, I do have a hard time not seeing the objective value of W+. I mean, sure, I may never have any interest in a Harley Davidson motorcycle customized with an official Man U paint job, but I can still acknowledge that for people who like motorcycles and soccer, that's a nice bike that's probably well made and painted. If a person doesn't place personal value in old White Dawrfs and other content, doesn't get into the well-produced (or at least produced in GW's style) battle report and painting video content, isn't a fan of animation, etc., then W+ may not appeal personally, but it doesn't make it a bad value. To me, it's a great value. Then again, I subscribe to WD, Hulu, Tidal, Netflix, Amazon Prime/video, Disney+, Audible, and more. W+ gives me several things that none of the others do, and at a cost I consider trivial. For me it is subjectively a good value, and I assert that it is objectively one as well. But that's wandering from the main point. If folks want to be evaluate the new AoS app (the subject at the top) that's great! Sharing opinions here is great, as well. What flummoxed me, as I've said, is anyone coming here and saying "new app is good!" only to immediately follow that with "but it's not good 'cuz I'd have to pay someone for the good thing they are offering to me." It just. I mean. I. I don't get that seeming duality.
  14. Fair point, and one that's been around for over 30 years. The number of times I've heard a variation on "THIS is the time it costs them" or "THIS is the game that takes out 40K" or the like is uncountable. Yet somehow GW and their "bad" business decisions (that we all just know for sure we could do better than) fends off the challengers, makes better and better stuff, and keeps bringing in the cash. Soooo, really you just don't want it. That's fine. That's a you thing, and I certainly won't tell you you are wrong to not want a product. I'm just surprised by the simultaneous praise/condemnation by the same person or peoplefor a thing that they acknowledge is good. I mean, if the Times reviews a book and says it's great, then my friend says that book is great, and then I am offered a free chapter to try the book myself ... and I think the book is great from what I can tell, wouldn't it be weird of me to go to the bookstore to get it only to say that the book is now trash because it's not free?
  15. Happy to respond. First, the one I genuinely don't understand, so I'm asking because I'm curious - What do you mean by paying more for a new Battletome? As to the rest, the only one that I think has legitimacy is paying for warscrolls when the info on them (slight modification to your point, as the warscrolls themselves were never free) used to be free. I can certainly understand, and even agree with, the frustration over losing that free access. But the other stuff? The stuff they are producing may echo what others make, but they are doing it with much better quality and (I understand this next may not matter to everyone, but there is actual, marketable value to it) from the official source. I did mention that Netflix has more video content. Did you see where I acknowledged that ... and showed the lack of relevance? Does Netflix deliver anything else? That brings me to the comment about a model. Thank you for your comment there, as it absolutely mirrors the commentary that prompted my original comment. I can illustrate my exasperated, open mouthed incredulity. There's a comical phrase used to show that complainers will never be happy: "Timmy is the negative sort of person who, when you have him a million dollars in quarters, he'd say 'Gee, great, now how am I supposed to carry all this home?'" Hey Timmy, you just got a million dollars. Maybe don't gripe. That's what I'm getting here. Most folks in this thread have said the app is quite good, and yet some of the same people (in some cases) then immediately complain that they have to pay the company for a seemingly well-made product. Say whu? It's good, you like it, but you hate it if you have to buy it? So, to the model. Yep, it's an incentive to join. So what? An Orruk warboss retails for $40 - two thirds the cost of the W+ sub. How is it remotely a negative that you get a $40 model for free? Or slice it differently. If you like one of the models, spend the $40 on it. Now, after that, you get the entirety of W+ for $20. And as a reminder, that includes previously published materials that have a dollar value (or at a minimum, did when published) that you now get included for your $20. Honestly, man, it really feels like the complaints here (other than removing access to the info on warscrolls) are being made just out of habit, not because they've been well reasoned.
  16. Or, you know, you could do your research, avoid gross hyperbole, and maintain objectivity. I criticize GW a bunch. I'm just able to not let that taint everything I think about the company. But go on, keep saying things that are plainly false without bothering to check into them first. I would very much enjoy reading a reasoned counterpoint to my idea that it's more than a little entitled to complain that we should be getting free stuff ... 'cuz reasons. Got anything along those lines?
  17. Let me get this straight. W+ comes with: Really nice, regular animated content. High quality battle reports. Next-level painting videos many have asked for for decades. A free model, with option to get another. Digital versions of out of print magazines and other material. The 40K app. All for $60/ year (or, just over the cost of a single physical Battletome). Then, today, they add what pretty much everyone here is saying looks to be a really well done AoS app. They add this for all to try for free, giving us all a chance to 'try before you buy.' And lots of you are moaning about it. Man, I love this community a ton, but I can't recall a more entitled-feeling group. Yes, Netflix and Disney+ have more video content, but they offer nothing else and cost more. It's not a valid comparison. W+ is its own thing, and for the price the offering is really good. I can't believe how much some here feel like they are entitled to free stuff - stuff that cost a business to create, but somehow they are supposed to just give away. Give me a break. To rephrase what I've read here: "Wow, this is really good! It better be free or that will negate its goodness completely." Sheesh.
  18. I completely understand your question, and even figured it would come up as I typed that. The best I can say is just that for me, personally, the book thing feels like it crosses a line (which was essentially asked of me and generated that response). In one case, they were offering free warscrolls on their site. A nice thing to do, giving away rules for free. In the other case, it feels like a premeditated way to "take" from their elf and demon customers. A knowing, purposeful manipulation of the trust relationship. Absolutely legal and within their rights, but just a whole different level of shady and greedy. You need the Battletome to play, and always have (assuming we put aside breaking the law). Even if you got free warscrolls before, you still needed the book. So, they "required" you to buy the book once the whole time, then chose to make you pay double for it. That's different, in my view, from removing a free optional nice-to-have thing that never actually saved the customer money. To use a wonky comparison, think about dentists. When I was a kid, I would look forward to going to my required (by my mom) semi-annual visit because there was a treasure chest of free toys there and I got to pick out one to keep after each visit if I was good. One day, the treasure chest went away. I still had to go. They took away a nice thing, but ultimately I was going twice each year no matter what. Now, if the dentist started telling me that he would drill holes in my teeth during one visit, and then fill them a week later on a second paid visit, I'd have an issue with that, even if he could legally do it. Again, I understand your question, but all I can offer is my feeling on why it's different.
  19. Oh, sure, there are lines. It's not blind fandom. I've offered plenty of harsh criticism here and in other places over the years. I've even given one example of them cancelling Warhammer getting me so upset that I quit for a year. More recently, I've significantly reduced my advance purchases because of two factors - the product not meeting expectations once it's in my hands, and the unacceptable pace of Battletome/Codex obsolescence & replacement. I used to order every book and all wardcrolls automatically, and got limited editions of those I suspected would be favorites. Now I skip warscrolls for armies I don't intend to play, only get Battletomes for armies I will be collecting, and get the limited books very, very rarely. I just can't keep throwing cash at books that need errata day one and will likely be replaced entirely in just a few years. Don't even get me going on the Lumineth and Slaanesh books. I believe they deliberately cut them both in half in order to sell you the "same" book twice. That's some pretty awful behavior right there. Then there is the Cursed City fiasco. I don't care what theories are out there. I won't rehash the whole thing here, but their lack of communication and other issues surrounding that really ticked me off, and I said that on this very site at that time. The Black Library novels that are literally sold out before my market even has the chance to preorder them - despite their site showing them available and then waiting in a queue only to find out later that they were never actually available to me - upsets me greatly. That's some BS right there. I was also pretty upset when they canned me in an IT downsizing effort after nearly 12 years of happy and loyal service. That was not good and made me mad at them for a long time. So, plenty of what they do upsets me. Just not stuff like them, as is the right of any business, to determine which sales strategies make them the most money. Edit: Just thought of another thing that would put me off. If they moved to pre-painted models, even just as an option (which, btw, was on the table and experimented with when I worked for them), I'd probably stop being their customer.
  20. I'm no more of an expert on their business than anyone else here, but if I had to guess, it's going to incentivize W+ subs, generating the sort of steady, predictable, recurring revenue stream that public businesses and their investors love. It's less about the free model "damaging" them as you suggest, and more about a regular, monitized model being desirable. To put it another way, which do you think a business owner (or it's investors if public) wants to hear: 1. "We THINK having free rules possibly increases sales by some amount." 2. "We have 20,000 monthly $5 subscribers, generating $X known monthly profit."
  21. Oh no! Say it ain't so! A highly successful, multi-national, decades-lasting business that spends its resources (time, money, etc.) producing a product wants to exercise its rights to control how that product is obtained by others and to choose how it feels is the best way to recoup its investment in those products. Don't they know that they've only lasted this long due to luck, and that if they just did what some customers think they should do they would be able to stay in business? Grr. I get that people like free stuff, and I get that we may have ideas about what we think a business should and should not do, but man, somehow, some way, GW has managed to be insanely successful forging their own path despite not doing every little thing that complainers want them to do. I was one of those complainers when Warhammer was replaced by AoS. I even quit the hobby for about a year after having been in it for about 30 or so. But you know what? They made the right decision despite me being 100% convinced they were stupid at the time. I think I'll trust them to know what is best for their long term health and for the success of Warhammer. If nothing else, their stock value pretty much pays for my hobby purchases, so that's a strong indicator to me that they are doing what I, as an investor and hobbyist, want.
  22. Believe me, I understand GW (or Mythic or AMG - the companies behind my current two "fave" games (Super Fantasy Brawl and Crisis Protocol)) is not perfect, but like any manufacturer/designer, they provide one enormous advantage that no other option (no matter how amazing the community might be) does: universality. No matter where you go or who you meet, you will find players with a default setting, so to speak. You need no negotiation. You, rightly, assume that the rules everyone got are in effect. Even if the rules are perceived to be flawed by some, at least every single player has them and you can get a game in based on the universal known rules. Just for me, personally, I can't bring myself to even try to impose what I think is the "correct" version of a rule on someone when we both already know what the rule is. I'm just not that self-important. Please note: I'm not accusing anyone here of being that. It's a personal feeling. I just don't think it's my place to try to get someone to, essentially, break the rules to satisfy me.
  23. I totally hear you on that one. It's suuuuper frustrating to be building (after buying!) an army for an event only to find your idea is invalidated by a FAQ'd FAQ of FAQy correction. I'm not sure a community version would be any better, though. More cooks in the kitchen is not usually a good thing.
×
×
  • Create New...