Last week I post the first review of WFRP3 made by ICV2.com, I post it and come just today to see the reaction of the people and I am glad that they make there mind of the WFRP3 by themselves. I make the tour of my favourites Sites and I See in IVC2.com, That CEO, Christian Petersen Write to IVC2 and they publish is memo and there it is:

Christian Petersen, CEO of Fantasy Flight Games, on WFRP Review
'Disappointing'
Published: 11/30/2009 12:00am
Christian Petersen, the CEO of Fantasy Flight Games, read Bill Bodden's recent review of the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (see "Review of 'Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay'") and strongly takes issue with it:

I couldn't help but flinch at Bill Bodden's review of our upcoming WFRP 3rd Edition game. It's always disappointing when it's painfully obvious that a reviewer hasn't thoroughly played the game in question, if at all. As we sent Bill the WFRP review copy from our offices late last week, I am aware of how few days he's actually had received the game (it was left on his porch late last Friday). There is no way that he could have digested the game properly in that short of a time (this is a huge game). Instead he glances at the components and pays the bills (pun intended) by simply regurgitating concerns of online dissenters that have yet to play this controversial new take on the RPG genre. In fact, Bill's review read similar to some WFRP 2nd Edition die-hards that had seen the WFRP components in our glass case at Gen Con--many of whom have changed their minds to positive after actually playing WFRP3.

As FFG was keenly aware, that the innovative new direction we are taking role-playing, manifest in WFRP3, would garner controversy and "glass case opinions" such as this review, FFG sent out over 400 demo copies to retailers worldwide in our "Emperor's Decree" event. The Emperor's Decree took place about 10 days ago (and continues as this is written in other countries). We wanted gamers to actually play the game instead of
speculating, we wanted them to see how amazing the system as a basis for fun and storytelling, really is.

The response to the Emperor's Decree event has simply been astoundingly positive, as the dozens and dozens of glowing play-sessions reports can testament. FFG is currently sold out of the first wave of the game (which hit retailers 11/25), and excitement is about as high as for any FFG release in our history.

With WFRP3, FFG is truly seeking to take role-playing into a new innovative direction, seeking to re-ignite a market segment that is otherwise in dramatic decline. On the issue of cost, we have great retailers that sell CCG players $100+ on boxes (sometimes multiple boxes) up to four times a year. Such retailers know that the gaming audience is willing to pay for great gaming experiences. For the past 12 years, I've made a living of selling big box quality games, and I'm completely confident in saying that the content of the WFRP3 box represents one of the best values that FFG has ever created, both in terms of gameplay, component wealth, and writing. In fact, the WFRP core set will support up to 4 players (including the GM). And at a price comparable with the three D&D4E core book (which in practice will only support one player), WFRP3 provides everything those players need to play out of the box (even dice, and lots of them!).

I'm disappointed that Bill fails to disclose his employment with Green Ronin, not only a competing RPG publisher, but the publisher that created WFRP 2nd Edition, the system that WFRP3 replaces. Bill should also have disclosed that he applied to do writing on WFRP3, but was turned down by our RPG editor. I guess the notion of "conflict of interest" was discarded into the same heap where " games reviewed should actually be played" lies. From a professional website such as ICv2, I would have expected far better disclosure.

The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff of ICv2.com.

Editor's Response:

Bill Bodden, a regular game reviewer for ICv2, was a writer for the previous edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay both when it was published by Games Workshop (through Green Ronin, which wrote the RPG for Games Workshop), and for Fantasy Flight Games. We view those experiences as great qualifications to review the new edition.

Bodden says that it's not true that he applied to Fantasy Flight Games to write for Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3rd Edition, and was rejected. In fact, he says that the last time he discussed doing additional work for WHFRP 2nd Edition with Fantasy Flight, he was asked to submit a proposal for additional work, which he did not do. Bodden says that he was not even aware that FFG was preparing a 3rd edition of WHFRP until fairly recently (the new version was announced and displayed at Gen Con, see "Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3rd Edition").

As to whether Bodden's relationships with the previous versions of WHFRP should have been disclosed, yes, it would have been better had that information been included with the review, and we'll be more careful to include that kind of background information in the future. In fact, it would probably also be a good idea to include "reviewer blurbs," giving background on the reviewer, in the reviews we publish on ICv2.com as we do in the magazine to help give more context for our reviewers' opinions.
With regard to the content of the review, we'll grant that there's less in the review about gameplay than in most game reviews we run (mostly by the same writer as this one), but we do find the review to be a generally good summation of the reactions some will have to the game. In general we've given our reviewers considerable latitude as long as they include an assessment of the potential popularity of the product, which this review did. But it's worth our consideration whether to require greater emphasis on gameplay in our game reviews, and we will do that.
FFG CEO Peterson is certainly entitled to his opinion of Bodden's review, and we welcome his impassioned defense of his company's product here. Opinions will differ, and the more the merrier. Peterson's comments on disclosure are generally fair and as noted above, we'll be changing some of our policies in the future. His comments were included here verbatim in the interest of fully disclosing and addressing his concerns.

But we feel it's also important to communicate one of our own opinions, related to tone and mutual respect: we don't feel that a discussion is advanced when the speaker is attacked, rather than focusing on what's said. Smart people of good intent will have opinions that vary, and we feel that disagreements over those opinions should be left at that.

--Milton Griepp, ICv2 Editor and Publisher

You can see it on ICV2: http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/16362.html

I think Review is a good in General, But when is made with neutral critic, when you play the game and write with good intention in mind. This review those not reflect my view of the new Edition. I was one who was furious of the new Edition, but I wait, i try it and buy it, I play just two times since, There some rule I have not play with, And I can make the full critic of the game at this time, But I can say that there much good then bad in the third edition and make your own opinion of this game.

One last word Try it before torch it.

Fox

Here's what the review said:

Roleplaying games are becoming a harder to sell; with direct competition from online and console RPGs, not to mention the aging of the hobby, it can be tough to reach new markets. With the new edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Fantasy Flight Games attempts the previously unthinkable; making a tabletop RPG into a more visual experience to draw in a new audience. FFG also recently held a preview weekend, sending sneak peek materials out to stores to help introduce the game to its core audience.

When I first opened the review copy FFG sent, I thought they packed some components from Runebound or Descent into the massive box by mistake. In fact, it wasn’t a mistake; they meant to include all the various decks of cards, colorful specialty dice, and even the cardboard heroes with plastic stands. The changes don’t stop there; character sheets have become double-sided character cards; the dice have icons rather than numbers; and there’s a progress track with puzzle-cut pieces to help keep track of the ebb and flow of a character’s combat attitude. Much of the game’s core resembles the WFRP of old, but these changes make it more like one of FFG’s famously massive board games, but without the same high degree of accessibility. It’s also clear that little thought was given to the growing market segment online; chiefly because of the components, this strikes me as a game that wouldn’t lend itself well to direct downloadgood news for retailers but a potential limit to achieving greater market penetration.

I cannot fault FFG for trying something new; this is clearly an attempt to draw in a new audience for Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, perhaps even riding on the coattails of another famous and recently redesigned RPG. The problem is WFRP is neither a true tabletop RPG, nor is it a board game; it’s something halfway in-between. It isn’t enough like a boardgame to draw that crowd, and many of the components seem to be of limited utility such that I was confused by them initially. It felt as though new elements had been stapled on as an afterthought rather than truly integrated.

Handsomely presented though it is, at an approximate MSRP of $99.95, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay will be a tough sell. There are definitely die-hard fans who will want this from day one, but price will be a barrier.
Bill Bodden

Now, im not going to say that I know more about the game or anything, because I haven't bought it (not because I instantly disliked it as soon as I heard of it like some people, but due to my lack of fascination with the Warhammer Fantasy setting and of course the pressing matter of lack of funds. Im broke as a churchrat right now).

BUT, reading this review I can't help but see this guy Bill Bodden just opening the box, look perplexed after having fiddled a little with all the different components and then went on and just wrote what pretty much what all the other naysayers have said so far about the game.

My question is: how the hell do you "review" a roleplaying game without actually trying it out for at least an evening with a group of friends? In my opinion, just opening the box and going through the components and glancing a little at the rules does NOT give you sufficient information to actually write a review about the entire game. It's like reviewing a new car by just looking at it and trying out the windshield wipers a little, but not actually take it out for a spin.

Seems to me like this so called "reviewer" was just too lazy to actually try the game out and just stuck with the easy way out and drawing the "it's a half-boardgame" straw man argument.

Reading this "review" makes me rather sceptic of the fact that Bill have actually tried the game out before passing judgement...

As I've said before, This game will endure a long period of hate, just like 4E D&D did. Angry fomer edition fans, who intend to complain and complain in hopes that will change the tide of sales and success of this edition.

FFG made the right move, you know it, we all know it. You had two choices. Take the game in a completely new direction, or reprint the books with the same mechanic, hoping that the fans would rebuy everything just for a few changes you made. In the end that would have just been 5 years of medicore sales, at best.

That has the look of a private exchange that was made public. Anyone know if CP intended that to be out there?

Sinister said:

These are not by any means the ONLY choices that where availible to FFC. We live in a very exciting time for the development of the RPG industry. They could have continued with 2nd edition, but set out to provide high quality adventures, containing new setting and game material using a subscription based model similar to the pathfinder adventure paths, they could have looked to the patronage model or any number of other approachs. Perhapes they did and decided they where not viable, but the options where not 'mediocre for 5 year' or new game.

Much like 4e, this is not a new edition, but a new game. That is why there is Nerd Rage. Greater honesty by both FFG and WotC on this point would almost certainly save them a lot of hastle. 'Look, the old game had problems, we want to try something new, but need the brand recognision of the old name. Is that okay with you our loyal fans.' would almost certainly go down better.

zombieneighbours said:

As I've said before pathfinder is no where near the money generating potentional that FFG needs or wants. There's a reason that paizo only has 4 books coming out after 13 months of release. It's because the sales are substantially small. They are great for Paizo, don't get me wrong, but not let's say at the level that Wizards of the Coast wants. 4 books in a year wouldn't pay the bills and make the profits. Paizo is happy with their market niche, it's NOT the niche for Warhammer, however.

I have nothing against pathfinder, but it IS a reprint. There sales base is very small compared to Wizards of the Coast, DESPITE, offering 95% the same content. A core book "pathfinder" edition, might sell as much as this core box set, the expansions would be at best mediocre sales.

The bottom line is something like this : People get excited about new products, compeletely new. If is more of the same old same old, they decided on a case by case basis. There's no denying however, that everyone that owns a core box set right now, WANTS a adveturer's toolkit.

zombieneighbours said:

Erm, are you actually suggesting that the company should "ask" the fans if it's "okay" to proceed with the plans they had in store?

Hate to break it to ya, but if companies did that, they would never get anything off the ground. I'll quote Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw (aka Zero Punctuation) here:

-"Fans are clingy, complaining dipshits that will never EVER be grateful for any concession you make. The moment you shut out their shrill, tremulous voices, the happier you'll be for it."

It might sound harsh, but this is sort of how companies have to think if they want to get projects off the ground. Especially if those projects are tied to a previously released part of the same franchise.

Sometimes these bold new steps will be recieved with warmth, other times new steps will be recieved badly. But it doesn't matter because you can't ask companies to "ask the fans first" what they should do. After all, it wasn't the large group of fans that created the product in the first place...

Very true. See: Warhammer Online launching 20+ extra servers at the request of loud fans, and subsequently losing hundreds of thousands of subscriptions specifically on the "not enough player density" complaints. Listening to customers, particiularly the loud online ones, can destroy sales.

Also, it's important to note that, even for a niche product like an RPG, the fans posting on forums and blogs represent a *very* small fraction of actual consumers. This can be pretty clearly seen by web hype not matching up to sales for any entertainment. Take movies, for example: Serenity, Snakes on a Plane, Transformers (particularly the second) all demonstrated returns wildly different from the picture seen online.

WFRP may fall into a similar category; lots of back and forth online, but the actual sales (depending on the first run size) might indicate that the people who actually buy products (not just talk about them online) enjoy it, or are purchasing.

Please remember that there are also people that have played this game, tested it with their gaming group and gave it every chance and found it very disappointing. Not every negative thing that's said about WFRP3 is because someone is unhappy their that their favorite edition of the game has been discontinued or because they have an axe to grind.

In sharp juxtasposition to a lot of the positive praise I've seen, our group really disliked the game, and frankly that is putting it mildly.

My point, one can have a negative opinion of this game without having a confict of interest. It sounds however, that this review did. It's a shame.

Well done, Spaniard.

You called out a guy who "reviewed" a game without playing it and then did not disclose that he was involved in the previous edition. Even ICV2 had to admit it.

Epic Win.

Sinister said:

Probably the most sensible reason for a new edition of Warhammer Fantasy that I've seen posted here yet. If it had been a better game with less resourcement management it might have appealed to my gaming group.

Shadowspawn said:

It's a shame your group didn't like it but I totally understand. Every single edition of something will have people that just don't like it. Just remember that you have your 2E stuff, and your group likes it. Keep playing what you like! I'd sit in a game of 2E if I was in your neck of the woods.

Shadowspawn said:

Oh im sure there is. Personally I doubt that this particular reviewer did that though. The brunt of the text comments way too much on the gizmos of the game rather than on actual in-game situations and how the mechanics worked in relation to these situations.

If I had seen some more of the latter it would have been a different story, but somehow I get the feeling that this guy just jumped on the hate bandwagon without giving it a decent chance...

Sinister said:

Varnias Tybalt said:

Sorry, just need to hug you for the Yahtzee quote.

It is fine, and true. Companies do behave that way. Companies are not our friends, they are not here to do what is best for us, they are not here to provide a good product. They are here to squease us for every penyy they can get.

But they really do need to do it with finesse. The worst thing i can say about the releases of 4e was that WotC where stupid about it. They created the Nerd Rage and have suffered because of it (okay, not very much, but a little)

I cant really comment on fantasy flight about this. They, from what i have seen atleast have been trying to play the PR game sensibly. My interest in fantasy flights take on WFRP has been almost non-existant for a while since to them basically not supporting it., which is why i am now playing catch up.

Saint&Sinner said:

That's exactly what I thought.
I think it's bad form for a publisher to comment publicly on a negative review and I'd be surprised if this was intended for public consumption.

zombieneighbours said:

I wouldn't agree with that completely. I think that creating a good product *is* essential to the long term health of the business. Realistically, most companies need to find a balance between finanical needs and customer needs. Some (see: Apple, Disney) do this by telling their customers what they want and guiding their desires. Others (see: Walmart, Microsoft) seem to focus on bulk over quality, though they inevitably seem to suffer the consequences over time (see: Microsoft, Sony) and have to put extra resources into changing perception and catering to customers (see: Windows 7).

In the end, it's the euros, dollars, and pounds that count. Often (*especially* online) the complaints don't reach the pocketbooks - people may complain, but it seems to be only those who wouldn't buy anyway who do the talking. You can see when financial impact happens (both in the hobby game market, and the "real world") 'cause companies will start reacting quickly to update products, understand what customers actually want, and/or prices.

Sinister said:

I agree completely but would like to point out that they had a third choice: Can WFRP completely.
I can only think of a handful of games that have been through as many publishers as our beloved WFRP (4, if we count Flame) and each must have had good reasons for handing it off to someone else. Perhaps there just isn't enough in the traditional presentation of WFRP to keep it viable in the (apparently) shrinking market.

So FFG, IMHO, had 3 choices: (1) Can WFRP and focus on their core business (2) Find another publisher, in conjunction with GW who undoubtedly have the final say of where it would go and for how much or (3) Try something radically different to try and keep WFRP in the stable and to stimulate the stagnant RPG publishing business. For the latter to succeed you need, as others have already pointed out, a well-known IP to use as a basis, which the Warhammer setting represents. WotC took this approach with D&D4e but didn't quite have the guts or vision to take it all the way. I'm willing to bet that 5e will look more like WFRP3e than D&D4e.

zombieneighbours said:

Naw, that's not really the case either, my friend.

While there are plenty of companies whose sole goal it is to squeeze every penny out of their customer demographic, companies like FFG are most likely more interested in making games. I've said it before in another thread (actually in this very same messageboard section, and I think you can guess why ) and that is that if you're goal was to become filthy rich and make absurd amounts of money, then investing time and effort in the boardgame/RPG-making industry would NOT be the best market to choose. Mainly because it's a niche market that won't really grow or expand beyond it's current point, so it's not really an "untapped" market or anything like that where the "right" business practices or even a "holy grail of game design" will really make the big bucks roll in.

My point with the ZP-quote was more that, whatever your motivation for being in any particular industry might be, paying too much attention to whatever the unpleasable fanbase demands is just going to lead you nowhere fast. And whatever project you have in the works simply won't get off the ground at all.

The only pragmatic way of getting a new product out there on the shelves is to stick with your idea if you believe in it. Especially if you have gotten ideas that you believed in before out in the stores and got them sold. Fan-feedback might be something to keep at the back of your mind, but you can't really take all that into account before getting to work, because you'll be stuck having to listen to the fan-army's demands and complaints forever. And even if their "feedback" would actually end one day, if you summarized the course of action recommended by them, then they would certainly find stuff to complain about yet again.

Remember Sisyphus and how he had to roll a large boulder up a hill in hades, but whenever he got to the top, the boulder would always roll back down again, forcing Sisyphus to start all over again? That's sort of what it would be like trying to please all or even the majority of fans of any given franchise, and thus no games would be created at all.

So it's not always about making as much money as possible with the least amount of effort. It's more about having the stones to stick with your original idea if you believe in it, and only make ever so slight modifications to it based on fan-feedback but never, ever deviate from the core concept because of fans complaining. It's the only viable way to get a product out there, and once it's out there you have to let the customers decide. If it's good, they'll buy it. If it sucks, they most likely won't buy it.

HorusZA said:

As light and ill informed as the review was, it is very bad form from FFG to respond in this way.

Skywalker said:

I tend to disagree. What you write is generally good advice except when the review is completely flawed. Reading the review it is obvious the reviewer did not perform due dilligence in reviewing the product. As was written above, the review is analogous to a food critic that just walks past the restaurant and commits on how the food is, it unprofessional.

Varnias Tybalt said:

For Pathfinder

I see four hardback rule releases. Everything else is the much much much smaller pathfinder magazine and accessories. How many people do you think subscribe to that? Do you think those subscriptions have a volume print of Martial Power or a PHB II?

Not one game store in town (of the 5) carrying the pathfinder subscription. Out of the hundered of players playing DND I know one, and only one who has a subscription to pathfinder's.

So reapers on board to. Those sales won't be 1/1000th of DnD minis line.

We can argue about this all day long because we don't know exact sales figures, but you can honestly believe that they are in the neighboorhood of Wizards' DnD sales?

They are doing are small print runs catering to a smaller audience.

sure I could just cater to a few die hard Warhammer Fans, or I could use the full potential of FFG, and their boardgame componets to reach a whole new audience.

They are doing the small and loyal crowd approach, which eventually screws them from young players. They have a niche for now, but in 6 years it'll be tough choice time, and my money is on them mutating the system more dramatically than Pathfinder.

Not only that, but reprinting old rulesets don't inspire creativity in designers, and does get the crowd excited (one way or another). It's trying to recapture lighting in a bottle from 3x''s release 8 years ago. They just happened to reconize there's still some money to be had beating the dead horse.

nub5 said:

Sure I agree the review was lacking. Thats obvious to me and I took the review as lacking because of it.
I also have a failry good inclination had the review had a more positive spin and the overall result given 5/5 nothing would have been said at all about the lack of them playing the game.

I mean given this (bolded for empahsis):
... And at a price comparable with the three D&D4E core book ( which in practice will only support one player )....

The CEO either doesnt know much about RPGs or didnt take care enough to think about the statement. To think that the core rules of D&D (or any other RPG for that matter) supports only one player is ludicrous. I had to read over it again to make sure I didnt miss something.

I also love the RP spin of sending out 400 demo copies (implying at their own expence) to stores that they actually sold (abet at likely cost) to them, or so I believe the case was. I am not even sure there was 100 locations doing the demo for that matter (anyone know how many locations?).

Loswaith said:

I believe the intent is one of company perception. IE each player will own a copy of the player's guide. I mean if you are serious about the game beyond just your group, you'll own a copy.

There were 3 locations here doing demo, and that's one midwest city. I believe 400 is very plausible number.