Could this game have saved Fantasy if Games Workshop had the

>>48968266
Yes. So many of my normie friends have loved playing it and are always asking me questions about the TTG.

I've also noticed a lot of posts on /tg/ about WHFB by people who are clearly new to the setting.

>>48968266
Yeah it probably it could have saved it.

Yes.

8th edition needed fixing, but if they dropped a proper 9th edition shortly before total warhammer released it would have been a very different wargaming market right now.

File: AoS sales vs WHFB sales.png (339KB, 542x754px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 542x754px

But Fantasy is already saved.

>>48968356
>my anecdotal evidence beats your anecdotal evidence

I'm sure it'd help build interest in future Warhammer Fantasy products but I doubt it would have done much to save the WFB game as it existed in the last few years. There are just too few people for whom the effort and expense of assembling a huge army of highly detailed miniatures seems appealing, not when you can just play video games.

But there's probably a substantial market for people who'd get into some kind of more accessible tabletop game for the social aspect, so if there was a skirmish game on the scale of Age of Sigmar but set in the world new players might recognise, well, that probably could have worked pretty well.

>>48968411
Anecdotal? The guys over that site says they have solid sources on the numbers. Numbers don't lie.

>>48968463
Their source is "I know a guy".

>>48968266
Yes.

But there would also need to be a business plan that wasn't insane.

>>48968463
Meanwhile, actual investors in GW are reporting concerns over lack of growth and falls in profit.

I'll believe the people who are actually invested rather than the people who are probably paid shills.

The tabletop is quite a different beast from TW:W. But it wouldn't have hurt.

>9,639 people currently playing TW:W

So if you subscract all the people that already play or have played GW games AND the people that have no intention to do so, you would get a small number.
Now substract all the people from there that do not care that its Age of Sigmar now, all the people that kinda care but could still play their faction without much effort and you get a tiny amount of possible players that either get mad because the fluff moved on and/or that have problems creating their army (Empire?).

Would it have been worth to delay a multi million game for this, that has been in development for a couple of years?

I don't think so.

>>48968266
No, gamers are notoriously cheap

>>48968780

The DLC apparently sold like hotcakes, even after all the whining.

>>48968805
Yeah and compare that to the cost of a 2000pt. fantasy army

>>48968710
Hey, no fair bringing actual numbers and sense into what could be a perfectly good shitpost thread.

>>48968547
You mean the GW report that also says that AoS is outselling what WHFB sold for several years?

40K is not doing well it seems. AoS can't carry that.

>>48968925
I don't think anyone's claiming that TW:W would have saved Fantasy as is. Obviously it would have needed a massive overhaul to stop being so shitty. But the game could have generated enough interest and new players to make it worthwhile to try and save Fantasy rather than scrapping it and replacing it with shit.

>>48968463
>The guys over that site says they have solid sources on the numbers.
Cool, now the only thing he have to do is to show them!

>>48968958
I seriously doubt it would have, TW:W was popular but it didn't exactly set the world on fire, certainly not enough for pc players to go out and spend 600$ on models, paints, books and then take the time to assemble, paint, learn the game, and then try to actually find a lgs with people who played a dying game like Fantasy.

Shit I love fantasy it was the game I wanted to play when an lgs actually opened up close enough to me everyone played 40k and Infinity.

Which is what I settled for, people put too much stock in what TW:W is, it's a great video game but it was never gonna save fantasy.

>>48968710
>>48968944
>Actual numbers
You're right that there would be a lot of people who wouldn't be interested, probably a big majority, but going for the amount of people currently playing the game rather than the amount of people who bought the game (around 830,000 according to steamspy) is disingenuous.

>>48968952
It says it's selling at a faster rate
a direct result of releasing at a faster rate

there's litterally nothing about actual incomes on the other hand

>>48968266
Yeah, but probably not without a new edition and the proper drive to build a decent community again (better WD, better stores/work with 3rd party stores) and better mini design.

>>48968266
There would have been the need to reduce the entry cost

Total war + Starting boxes + rules for many units to pay points for more wounds rather than pay to increase the models (and the boxes to buy) and you get fantasy saved

>>48969103
Cheaper prices, pre painted and assembled minis...

>>48968925
About 200€

10 years ago

>>48968266
No.

The game is and was always planned to be the last final hurrah for WHFB, I doubt it would have been made if the setting stayed stagnant.

>>48968952
Outselling a game that had no new releases for years with a game with releases every months isn't hard.

>>48969123
Prepainted would have been utter shit. That's why I mentioned game stores.

>>48968266
Any change to make WHFB playable and/or fun again would have saved it. Or new content that didn't involve destroying the world.

Instead of that GW did nothing and wondered why nobody was buying things.

>>48969195
>WHFB had no releases in 7th and 8th Ed

>>48968463
As someone who works with numbers for a living, I can confirm that while they can't lie, they can be twisted to say whatever you want. This "source" has quoted a couple of statistics without providing any sort of actually numerical backing to them, such as over what period of time was this the case.

>>48969278
Show me where they say they outsell 7th edition you cockgobbling retard.

>>48968463
>not citing sources
Trash.

>>48969278
>8th ed
>absurdly shitty edition
>not much releases
I guess they hoped that infantry sales would drive sales up but people gave up or went third party.

>>48969279
> "This product sales have exploded the day of its release!"

>>48968266
Assuming they shit canned ET, definitely. DoW saved 40k.

File: Citation Needed.png (10KB, 103x103px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 103x103px

>>48969402

>>48968266
No

>>48969308
>not much releases

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_Army_Book

File: Acewtf.jpg (49KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 320x240px

No because the price is simply too high.

I'm an American who has the unfortunate fate of working in sales for a company that is owned by a UK-based travel corporation. Originally there were three companies operating under our umbrella when our American business owners sold us to this UK corporation. We are the last one left and our sales are horrible compared to where they used to be. Do you want to know more?

It's because their business model, when things get bad, is just raise the price. Nothing else. They have absolutely no long-term growth thoughts or plans. It's a nightmare being in sales for these people because they simply can not wrap their brains around how the average consumer thinks.

As I said, I work in travel/tours around the world. We have competition. We are offering the EXACT SAME TRIPS as our competitors and our prices are anywhere from $300-$400 more for the same thing.

We keep having meetings and focus groups and all this bullshit to 'figure out where the sales are going,' everytime the sales people explain our price is just too much, and everytime we have a meeting a week later with a 'new sales strategy.' No changes to the pricing, in fact last week we got an email our prices are going up.... again!

I've only worked at this company my whole life (and plan on leaving very soon after what it's become), but it's really opened my eyes to how the UK does things, and made me understand why GW is the shitshow that it is.

>>48969500
>army books for a shitty ruleset is a worthwhile release guise
At the same time the zombies or the free company never got updated, so GW is effectively selling minis worse than any third party, for twice the price.

>>48969570
>We keep having meetings and focus groups and all this bullshit to 'figure out where the sales are going,' everytime the sales people explain our price is just too much, and everytime we have a meeting a week later with a 'new sales strategy.' No changes to the pricing, in fact last week we got an email our prices are going up.... again!
kek

>>48968547
This.

File: Bad Position.jpg (69KB, 600x379px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 600x379px

>>48969500
>couldn't even complete the books for every army in either 7th or 8th

Backfired on you there, mate.

>>48968952
In that case, GW should scrap 40K and focus all their resources on AoS. In fact, I am daring them to.

>trollface implied

>>48968266
Not without big changes.

>>48969570
This isn't really a British problem. It's an old guard problem.

You see these people all over the world. CEOs and board members who absolutely have no clue what they are doing. They may have had a clue, at some point, but they are utterly disconnected from modern life and they simply cannot wrap their heads around the concept of meaningful change. This particularly insidious and prevalent in companies that are used to facing minimal competition, like GW. They've never had to really try to offer the best deal because they've always been the go-to best. So when they DO have to try, it's incomprehensible to them, and nothing gets done.

I've worked with so many companies that work like this. It's usually a sign that they're in their twilight phase.

>>48969570
It would have worked with a return to the old army composition, where you didn't need hordes of infantry. 80€ for a single basic unit that take ages to build and paint is a bad business model and doesn't appeal to a lot of people.

>>48969778

100%

I don't want to have to sink a nentire weekend dedicated to painting to maybe have a small force. I want to have a nice little patrol I can buy for a low rate in a starter set and build from there.

>>48969821
It got to the point at the end that I wasn't sure that I could tell someone to buy one of the force starter sets, because I didn't know if that would actually provide a reasonable amount of points for a legal game.

When the starter sets aren't clearly the place to start, something has gone wrong.

>>48969821
The thing is, their battalion boxes were actually great, but in the end it didn't matter because it gave you at best half of every unit you would have needed.

>>48968710
>800k people bought the game
>this is without a single sale
>during the middle of the day during the middle of the week