What GW Can Learn From the Videogame Industry

[Stofficus]

Hello all,

 

I've been following the "GW's recent approaches" thread, and combined with the recent announcement of a new 40k campaign book with...questionable timing relative to its related codexes, I've been thinking more about what GW could do to address the increasingly problematic issues of bloat, lack of clear direction and deeply unequal support for factions. 

 

The answer to me, seems quite simple, look at how the biggest multiplayer gaming function in the world is doing business: "Seasons." 

 

For those who may not be as directly involved, the idea of videogame 'seasons' goes back a long time, but its current form really came to be with the success of Fortnite and how Ubisoft successfully salvaged Rainbow 6: Siege. The concept is fairly simple; the game's post-release development cycle is broken into distinct seasons, which tend to be either annual or roughly in line with spring/summer/autumn/winter. Each season has a distinct theme to it which all new content releases are tied to, as well as some kind of mechanical focus in the shape of new features, reworks of specific features and so on, alongside the normal patching schedule. Almost every multiplayer game since ~2016 has been employing this approach. 

 

One of the criticisms of GW these days is their roadmap is unclear or nonexistant, releases are scattergun without clear direction, and rules come in all manner of cumbersome, unequal packages at inconsistent timings. This could largely be addressed by the above; 

 

a Warhammer 40k season could look something like this: each year/half year (as this medium ultimately moves slower than digital entertainment) could be a season focused on a specific warzone, with a semi-standardized release format of codexes relevant for that warzone, a single campaign book which provides mission, narrative and game-mode content only. Model releases would be tied to these, and could be releases in a logical form of either alongside the relevant codexes, or if GW wanted to have a more "live" experience have everything's order tied to a narrative evolution of the given warzone. 

 

To build an example, let's say GW adopted this idea tomorrow, and the next season would be "Warzone: Armageddon" for 2021. They could announce with just a splash screen and some kind of lore recap articles on Warcom 4-6 months ahead of time. This then tells both grognards and new players to expect content for Orks, Imperial Guard and now World Eaters as the main focus for that season, with the potential for Grey Knights and few other hangers-on. 

 

Once the season drops, it begins with a codex and some releases for one of the main poster factions, likely the one receiving the biggest update. As the season goes on, additional codexes drop with an increasingly "mixed" model release for all the focused on factions, with the biggest "focused" drop occuring inline with their specific book. Warcom could release specific scenarios and narrative-supporting rules online as the campaign narrative evolves, which are drawn from parts of the eventual campaign book which is released in the latter part of the season once the narrative is nearly finished. 

 

This book would act as a compendium of sorts of the "live" part of the season, and include additional content unique to it such as alternative game modes, campaign structures, but otherwise act more like a lore book with supporting rules, rather than a rules delivery mechanism with poor bolted-on lore which depreciates very quickly. (in a perfect world, this probably wouldn't even exist, but I think we have to accept that GW really wants to sell books for pretty much everything - so if they're going to, may as well be something with more long-term value)

 

Overall, this accomplishes a few things: provides a clearer roadmap of future releases, makes for a more consistent book format which would reduce bloat, enhances community engagement, establishes a much more clear direction and theme to GW's releases, and theoretically results in more even distribution of releases from the last few years of All Primaris, All The Time. 

 

I know there are a host of other lessons GW could be taking from other industries to address other current flaws, but I think for the most part GW is trying to actively evolve into a better, more efficient company - but is currently completely missing the mark on their content delivery format which is a pretty big thing to bungle. 

[Rik Lightstar]

Seasons like Damnos, Crusade of Fire, Damocles, Shield of Baal, Warzone Fenris, Gathering Storm, Vigillus, Psychic Awakening and Warzone Charadon?

 

Followed by FAQs or Faction updates which keep the ongoing thematic changes but drop the ones that either don't work exactly as intended or don't fit the current narrative focus?

 

It'll never catch on.

 

Rik

[Stofficus]

Seasons like Damnos, Crusade of Fire, Damocles, Shield of Baal, Warzone Fenris, Gathering Storm, Vigillus, Psychic Awakening and Warzone Charadon?

 

Followed by FAQs or Faction updates which keep the ongoing thematic changes but drop the ones that either don't work exactly as intended or don't fit the current narrative focus?

 

It'll never catch on.

 

Rik

 

The issue is they never went all the way with these ideas. Let's break some of the past experience down: 

 

Damnos: Single release during an era where GW had no idea what they were doing. 

 

Crusade of Fire: Rebranding of Planetary Empires with, again, a single release and the bizarre experiment with the Crimson Slaughter supplement. 

 

Damocles, Shield of Baal, Warzone Fenris: all part of a similar experiment of updating lacklustre armies outside of the codex cycle with "narrative" books which were just a vector to add printed rules for a handful of new models and add some subfaction mechanics. 

 

Gathering Storm: Getting closer - thematic model releases tied to a clear narrative updating central factions in chunks. However, it was just a prelude to the edition change, so the rules were only valid for, in some cases, a few months. 

 

Vigillus: A few much-needed CSM model updates in a rapidly obsolete book package. specialist detachments were made illegal in, what, a few months? To say nothing of the debacle of the CSM 2.0 book. 

 

Psychic Awakening: Extremely inconsistent, and again, rapidly obsolete as a prelude to a new edition. Very little model support. 

 

Most of what GW has been trying is wildly inconsistent and inferior attempts to try and do what FW did back in the day with Imperial Armour, with most of the more interesting attempts just being preludes to edition changes which result in all the content being outdated in very short order. If they were to adopt a somewhat more standardized and integrated seasonal model, in theory it could streamline some of this and move towards a more natural "living" ruleset with logical, coherent updates. 

[Dark Shepherd]

I think the flaw is that GW dont want releases flagged like that. Whatever about the delay on codexes, as a Wolves player it sucked bigtime to be one of the last to get an 8th codex and an articially delayed one at that, but GW want us impulsively buying. They dont want us to be sensible with our money and wait or plan too far ahead

 

The campaigns/warzones could definitely be tidied up.

[MARK0SIAN]

Personally I don’t want all new stuff, all the time. We already have to buy too much stuff to stay up to date. I mean 9th is barely 6 months old and they’re already releasing a campaign book for it. DG players are rightfully annoyed at the day one dlc feel of it but also there’s several armies out there who have a codex from the early days of 8th that’s barely fit for purpose now. That’s what they should be prioritising, not adding new content all the time.

 

The other thing is seasons in video games work because people don’t generally have a choice about whether they move to the new season or not, it’s automatic when you next play the game. That’s not the same for 40k. A lot of players wouldn’t bother keeping up unless it was an edition change and so you’d fragment the player base quite a lot which isn’t good for the game.

[Stofficus]

Personally I don’t want all new stuff, all the time. We already have to buy too much stuff to stay up to date. I mean 9th is barely 6 months old and they’re already releasing a campaign book for it. DG players are rightfully annoyed at the day one dlc feel of it but also there’s several armies out there who have a codex from the early days of 8th that’s barely fit for purpose now. That’s what they should be prioritising, not adding new content all the time.

 

The other thing is seasons in video games work because people don’t generally have a choice about whether they move to the new season or not, it’s automatic when you next play the game. That’s not the same for 40k. A lot of players wouldn’t bother keeping up unless it was an edition change and so you’d fragment the player base quite a lot which isn’t good for the game.

 

Hence why ideally it'd ideally be about streamlining the delivery mechanism. I want the bloat cut down as much as anyone else, as the new campaign announcement struck me as problematic at best. 

 

Think of a season here more as a thematic way to articulate a roadmap, with actual core rules being kept to a codex, with everything else being there for narrative or reference purposes and a means to maintain a coherent marketing cycle. 

 

Ultimately, all I'd want to see as "paid for" publication is the codex, but I think the writing is on the wall GW wants more publications out there, so that begs the question what format is compatible with GW's corporate direction which makes the game less of a mess?

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

Personally I don’t want all new stuff, all the time. We already have to buy too much stuff to stay up to date. I mean 9th is barely 6 months old and they’re already releasing a campaign book for it. DG players are rightfully annoyed at the day one dlc feel of it but also there’s several armies out there who have a codex from the early days of 8th that’s barely fit for purpose now. That’s what they should be prioritising, not adding new content all the time.

 

The other thing is seasons in video games work because people don’t generally have a choice about whether they move to the new season or not, it’s automatic when you next play the game. That’s not the same for 40k. A lot of players wouldn’t bother keeping up unless it was an edition change and so you’d fragment the player base quite a lot which isn’t good for the game.

Hence why ideally it'd ideally be about streamlining the delivery mechanism. I want the bloat cut down as much as anyone else, as the new campaign announcement struck me as problematic at best.

 

Think of a season here more as a thematic way to articulate a roadmap, with actual core rules being kept to a codex, with everything else being there for narrative or reference purposes and a means to maintain a coherent marketing cycle.

 

Ultimately, all I'd want to see as "paid for" publication is the codex, but I think the writing is on the wall GW wants more publications out there, so that begs the question what format is compatible with GW's corporate direction which makes the game less of a mess?

It’s a good idea in principle but there’s no way GW will provide anything like that for free and nothing sells publications like new rules so they won’t confine rules to just the codexes either.

 

However I would love to see a proper roadmap. A genuine contender for my biggest gripe with GW is the unnecessary secrecy that surrounds everything.

[MegaVolt87]

All the new edition codexes should be dropping within 6-12 months, no longer than that. Ideally they should all be released at the same time at edition launch. "Seasons" would be quite a cop out excuse to delay codex releases further than they traditionally are. If anything, older content should be going back into circulation. Vigilus could easily cut all its unit/ army rules, detachents and combine the content of both books into one book. This way you get all the lore collected, the missions may not even need to be changed either. I would add an expanded list of general crusade relics anyone can take, book would be perfect. Having said that, new content will never be able to get away with not having non narrative content also otherwise if GW was confident of pure narrative content shifting books, it wouldn't be in the campaign books. Going forward, I think preservation of legacy campaign/ crusade content would be a good move. I would love to buy a consolidated vigilus book myself. 

[plastic_slug]

I think they have already taken to heart the dogma of the modern video game industry - ‘release it today whether it’s ready or not, and then maybe fix it tomorrow.’ I don’t think we need to encourage GW to be any more like the video game industry, which is itself a cesspool of lazy, sloppy, buggy, creatively bankrupt game releases, followed up by copious micro transactions. 

[Bung]

As someone who played videogames back in the 90s of the last millenium i despise the idea of Seasons in video games.

For me its something to keep videogames alive long after they should have died and replaced with something new and inovative.

[Scribe]

As someone who played videogames back in the 90s of the last millenium i despise the idea of Seasons in video games.

For me its something to keep videogames alive long after they should have died and replaced with something new and inovative.

Honestly I played Quake 3 for 5 years.

 

We didn't need seasons, and the community made maps...

 

The season model seems popular though. It's all just another for of DLC.

[Urauloth]

It looks like they already picked up "day 1 DLC" judging by the announcement of new DG rules in a campaign book before the codex is out. They're also very aware of the seasonal model - look at Underworlds, where you can't even get the rules to play a season's factions once they're cycled out.

[sairence]

I'm sitting here with my single player games wondering what seasons are all about.

[RandyB]

There is nothing that GW can or should learn from the videogame industry..

 

There is nothing that GW should learn from an industry that has declined in the quality of its output while milking its customers for more and more money; the industry that spawned the trope "soon"; the industry that went all in for visuals and discarded gameplay.

 

And no, GW hasn't gone as far as the videogame industry on any of the above.

[Slave to Darkness]

It looks like they already picked up "day 1 DLC" judging by the announcement of new DG rules in a campaign book before the codex is out. They're also very aware of the seasonal model - look at Underworlds, where you can't even get the rules to play a season's factions once they're cycled out.

Also rubbed me up the wrong way when the Necromunda box dropped and the rules for 3D terrain etc came in another book released on the same day... Frustrating as 'Munda is the best game GW do IMHO and I have yet to still play it, I cant keep up with all the books needed just for the updated/new weapons etc in the trade charts... 

 

 

I'm sitting here with my single player games wondering what seasons are all about.

Im still rocking Monkey Island and Dizzy (the old Egg game from the Spectrum/Commodore days), hell I might even fire up the Spectrum version of Space Crusade for old times sake. 

 

 

 

There is nothing that GW can or should learn from the videogame industry..

 

There is nothing that GW should learn from an industry that has declined in the quality of its output while milking its customers for more and more money; the industry that spawned the trope "soon"; the industry that went all in for visuals and discarded gameplay.

 

And no, GW hasn't gone as far as the videogame industry on any of the above.

'declined in the quality of its output while milking its customers of more and more money'

Thats pretty much GW from 2000 onwards though, admittedly slowly, but they have been getting worse since 6th ed dropped... 

 

Edited November 23, 2020 by Slave to Darkness

[Marshal Rohr]

GW can’t really do this because video game companies product is the game, GWs product is the models. The game is secondary. Edited November 23, 2020 by Marshal Rohr

[Sothalor]

It looks like they already picked up "day 1 DLC" judging by the announcement of new DG rules in a campaign book before the codex is out. They're also very aware of the seasonal model - look at Underworlds, where you can't even get the rules to play a season's factions once they're cycled out.

 

This, unfortunately. The release model of dicing up rules content into multiple discrete packages to be purchased individually bears an uncomfortable resemblance to some practices within the gaming industry. There was also that "mystery box" of models thing they did earlier this year, which treads a little too close to lootbox bull:cuss for my liking. Thankfully, they don't seem to have normalized on that process (yet).

 

I'll just echo the sentiments of several other fraters in this thread: considering the current state of the gaming industry, wanting GW to look to it for trends and examples is very much a "be careful what you wish for" sentiment for me.

[Stofficus]

GW can’t really do this because video game companies product is the game, GWs product is the models. The game is secondary.

 

I would counter with look at the volume of books being released. The game is being aggressively monetized as is. 

[Halandaar]

 the industry that spawned the trope "soon";

 

The irony of his is that "Soon™" used to indicate quality, because it meant "it'll release when it's ready". It's only over time it has morphed to become something more akin to "i'll believe it when I see it".

[Commander Dawnstar]

Some additions of my own:

 

A semi-regular patch/errata/balance tweak cadence

 

I think it would be really appreciable if GW established a policy of regular 'patches' for the game so that we as the community could see their dedication to cleaning up their rules and addressing any questions or issues being raised. Right now we have a vague timeline for FAQs after a Codex drops but beyond that there's no real sense of certainty surrounding when or if we'll see questions answered, rules tweaked or errors fixed. Setting up a clear and consistent rhythm for these fixes could do a lot to generate some goodwill. It'd give the playerbase an expectation that issues will be addressed and when rather than us having to wait in limbo until something suddenly drops without warning. Personally I'd also be in favour of more regular online rules tweaks/adjustments to help with game balance but I'd totally understand if people think that would make the meta too volatile or not really sit well with GW's focus on physical rulebooks.

 

Patch Notes

 

We do occasionally see this, but personally I would love to see GW more candidly explain the decisions behind their errata, go into detail about the goals behind adjustments to points or weapon profiles between books, and just generally giving us some idea about what their aims were in making certain choices without falling into corporate-speak. It would do so much to have a very clear sense of what the intent behind things was (and indeed to clear up RAI arguments) while also potentially allowing them to address some of the more contentious balance tweaks or reorientations of units' focus without having to approach them purely through marketing-speak on Warhammer Community.

 

Greater engagement with the community (through less-official channels)

 

Obviously something like this has its own clear downsides, but one thing I really appreciate about many of the games I'm interested in is how willing their devs are to use Reddit, Twitter or other mediums to engage with the playerbase. It's genuinely not out of the question that you can create threads on a game's subreddit or tag people on Twitter and actually receive some kind of answer about balance or game design decisions, lore direction or just whatever. It's definitely something that helps with community engagement and creates the sense that there's actually a line of communication between company and consumer, potentially allowing for things to occasionally be addressed far faster than they might be through patch notes or other official channels.

 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

They have provided detailed explanations in eighth edition.

[Rik Lightstar]

They have been bringing FAQ & Errata documents out within a month of release for the overwhelming majority of publications.

 

There was an established FAQ and Points Review structure through 8th Edition that I'd expect they'll be resurrecting in 2021.

 

Designer's Notes are published whenever there's a substantive change beyond clarifications of rule wordings or interactions they have a brief explanation for the change published.

 

I'm not a big fan of the "distributed rules" across multiple publications, I feel they have then price balance off from where it should be, if they're to continue with this model I'd prefer to see them sell the "expansions" at a lower price or with the Faction Specific updates sold with the "expansion" as a smaller volume like the included "Edge of Silence" booklet that came with the Indomitus box.

 

So for example the new Warzone Charadon would be a hardback Campaign setting with the DeathGuard and Drukhari segments as separate, individual but included booklets. This would at least make transporting your rules more manageable.

 

Rik

[tychobi]

Seasons would work fine but gw is too greedy. I think real engagement, positive feedback, actual groundswell might scare em. What if warhammer went main stream? They could never meet the demand. Would they loose control?

[Volt]

Sweet christ no, the problem is that there's too many books to begin with. An edition should only have as many rulebooks as is absolutely necessary - ie the BRB and the codices and errata when needed. Anything more is just bloat on top of that unless it is purely just campaign books with no additional rules to upset the metas and promote GW's favored rules creep across an edition. Seasons are cancerous already in videogame metas, adding them to tabletop would be the like the most malaised mechanic of that accursed pit of "free" to play games crawling out and infesting the material gaming world worse than the system already in place. Players would be objectively just priced out by constant rollouts of fairly expensive books containing rules you need in order to keep up, but cannot afford to gobble up. Plus they become utterly worthless whenever an edition ends and the local meta abandons past editions - becoming little more than overpriced bookends.

 

If campaigns were to be done right, GW just needs to stick to their bloody guns and run net Campaigns similar to the original Black Crusade or Storm of Chaos, but actually stick to their guns and commit to the results of a campaign. Instead of the usual foray with GW campaigns (and why caring about them is completely pointless) where GW either throws a fit and retcons all of the things they don't like - or they just completely ignore the results of it in the first place, even if the campaign was written by them. See Vigilus and Psychic Awakening for the most recent examples of the latter. This is also why I'm completely burned out on GW campaigns, because unlike in AOS there's no reason to give a damn about them in 40k. AOS certainly has shown more promise than 40K in this regard, Anvilgard iirc is gone, the faction is dead, the citizens scattered to the winds of magic and the city taken by the enemy and Order was defeated.

 

We don't need seasons, or any kind of gimmick. We just need good rules with good errata rolled out in a timely fashion, and then kept there, no editions every three years or such nonsense. And as for campaigns they should be player-game driven affairs with the results being cemented parts of the lore and the consequences not being erased. It's not like the lapse in releases is even necessary either. GW could literally release every single codex for every single faction right at the start of a new edition, but instead prefer to drag things out to milk anticipation (which turns into money) instead of writing and printing everything, then releasing all of the books come a new edition. It's a shame that the Indices of the start of 8th immediately fell apart, as they were the best idea GW had in a while.

[Commander Dawnstar]

Seasons are cancerous already in videogame metas, adding them to tabletop would be the like the most malaised mechanic of that accursed pit of "free" to play games crawling out and infesting the material gaming world worse than the system already in place. Players would be objectively just priced out by constant rollouts of fairly expensive books containing rules you need in order to keep up, but cannot afford to gobble up. Plus they become utterly worthless whenever an edition ends and the local meta abandons past editions - becoming little more than overpriced bookends.

Isn't this an issue with Chapter Approved right now?

 

We're already in a situation where GW expects/requires you to pay for two annual content updates, effectively made mandatory by points changes.