macd21 said:

We'll see if they want an artificially created craze every year or second year though. Right now FFG's strategy is haggling itself from new game line to new game line. And what the customer really wants is by no means clear, only what they buy. To derive from good sales that the customers do not prefer a different format is invalid. It could only be concluded from a 40K setting in an alternative format released concurrently.

What can be stated is that releasing such campaigns as seperate games is not the industry standard; it is an increasingly common practice but in the world of rpgs the model of one rulebook with multiple supplements should still be considered the default choice.

Alex

I as a customer want lots of supplements available for the game I play. If you look at last Quarters sales report, Warhammer Fantasy RPG does better than all the 40k lines combined. Yet if you look at the number of published supplements for the 40k lines, there are more of them than there are for Warhammer. Thus, the multiple line strategy has made more supplements possible. Giving me lots of available supplements. Seems like a good deal to me.

I would rather have a lattice of interconnecting rpgs that support each other and grow the overall game, than one rpg that doesn't make enough money for them to continue support.

Sometimes the best business decision is the best customer decision, because it allows more products to come to market at all.

That said, when 2nd Edition rolls around, I would like better compatibility between the lines.

At this point, I don't see much practical difference between releasing BC as a standalone product and releasing it as an expansion to any existing line. Either way it's more books to buy for me.

Sure, I'll get the fourth copy of the core rules, with minor modifications probably, but that doesn't change much IMHO. And as long as systems are mutually compatible, I get the mileage out of all 40k rpg books I've ever purchased.

Morangias said:

As a supplement based off of DH, how do you accomidate Chaos Marines? Based off of DW, then what about mortal followers of the Dark Gods? While Rogue Trader still leaves the issue of Chaos Marines, the only thing it really would bring to the table over the other two is rules for starhips.

ak-73 said:

Wasn't this the main argument against Deathwatch? Things work out and as far as I've heard FFG is going strong.

Maybe I'm unique, but I find the supplements useful across the line. Example, I plan on running Frozen Reaches (RT), except instead of a Rogue Trader crew the characters will be Imperial Guardsmen (DH) deployed to assist the planet. I plan on converting some of the larger battles into hordes (DW) and use imperial assets and reward honors and marks (Rites of Battle, DW).

The core books are about $10 more than the equivelant book would be as a supplement. So far my extra $20 has given me hours of entertainment. I'm willing to chip in another $10 more for additional rules on chaos. I'm sure I'm not alone.

My gaming group has spent roughly 600 USD on various 40K FFG rule books and adventures, and we've had the time to sit down and play the settings three times. Two DH, one DW.

So yeah, bring us more books and moar fluff as we have all dese monies to toss after you!

I'm not much for Chaos, but I do plan on picking this setting up in the vain hope that fluff is described

tkis said:

Bandersnatch said:

Old or New World of Darkness? I'm still surprised to see how many people forget or write like there isn't a difference, especially given how White Wolf Did The Exact Same Thing with old World of Darkness that FFG is doing now with 40k Roleplay. It can't be that bad of a business decision or WW wouldn't have made enough money to publish a third edition (nWoD) now would they?

Is this method bad for the consumer? Probably. Is the nWoD method superior to the oWoD method? I can't really make that comparison as frankly the products are not equal, and THAT is a discussion in itself.

Psion said:

When someone mentions the "White Wolf WoD Scheme" and then describes the nWoD publishing strategy (1 corebook + seperate game lines) it's pretty obvious which version they are talking about. As for whether it is a bad business decision or not, each method has its benefits and drawbacks. Certainly the oWoD made them money for 13 years - but that doesn't mean they couldn't have made more money by releasing 1 core + game lines instead.

It should be noted that the old model didn't make them enough money to keep publishing the old WoD in the end - they had to go with a totally new game. I don't think that would have changed had they used the new core + gameline strategy instead (the nWoD isn't exactly a big seller these days, after all), but evidence to support the old model is lacking.

Also, "third" edition? The nWoD isn't a 3rd edition of anything.

Old WoD made them tons of money and made them rivals to D&D in popularity. New WoD has barely a trickle of releases now and they are begging for money from an MMO company. The lesson I take from this is that a good game setting is far more important than which way the rules are released.

I know some people prefer nWoD over oWoD, and I don't really think one game is better than the other. Just that the new one was designed to appeal to people who didn't like the old one, which mostly meant half their regular customers stopped buying their books. ~50% loss for a ~20% gain didn't work out that well for them.

I think Fantasy Flight's decision to release Black Crusade as its own system rather than as a supplement is a sound business decision. Whether that is a good or bad thing depends upon how cynical you are. One could always claim FFG is doing their best to wring every last dollar out of its customers by needlessly reprinting rules, but I actually think the different core rule books lend themselves to a much more in-depth playing experience, which is key since the universe of 40K is anything but simple.

After all, in Dark Heresy, characters use and get paid in throne gelt. What would a Deathwatch "supplement" have done to get around the fact that Astartes don't use money?

In my opinion, multiple core rule books is the perfect way to adapt the 40K universe into a RPG setting. We're not talking about some werewolf or vampire game wherein everyone is typically either a werewolf or a vampire. In 40K, one can be human, superhuman, alien, daemonic, or even robotic and to try to shoehorn these disparate elements into one set of rules would result in a whole host of exceptions in each new supplement, thereby turning each supplement into a de facto core rulebook, or it would dull each unique race and faction down to the lowest common denominator, which would suck.

And given that the rules presented within are so readily adaptable to the other systems within the broader 40K RPG range, the ability to branch out and integrate other "systems" is just as easy as the decision to remain within the boundaries of one.

Alpharius Omegon said:

I have to agree here

there's no question that FFG's decision to release multiple game lines is intended to maximize profit

what's debatable is whether:

1) FFG is trying to pressure players into buying recycled rules, i.e. a crappy product (in economic terms this would be called "rent-seeking" whereby FFG wins and players lose)

OR

2) FFG has legitimate design concerns such as those stated above by Efidm

OR

3) FFG wants to cater to players who only want to play a single line using that line's rulebook instead of buying a universal rulebook and additional supplements

sorry, I meant "as stated by Alpharius Omegeon"

b1soul said:

These motivations cannot be cleanly seperated. In reality it's a mix of all 3 (although I don't think BC will be garbage). However the main motivation will be profit.
Fair enough but one shouldn't try to hide that behind actually less significant motivations.

Alex

I think there are legitimate obstacles to designing a universal WH40k RPG with a single core rulebook. I don't think FFG would break up a single RPG into multiple lines simply to maximize profit in the short-run if doing so adds no value whatsoever for the consumer, I think people are pretty sharp when it comes to spending their money...in the long-run, a business strategy of publishing large amounts of recycled material will self-destruct.

I think the WH40k universe is diverse enough to sustain several interrelated game systems. I don't think FFG did this with no design concerns in mind. I personally thought it made logical sense. I'm ok with the inquisition, rogue traders, space marines, and chaos having their own related but separate games. I don't think it would have been a good idea to lump everything together. It would have been a mess in my opinion.

No doubt, releasing a new game generates more interest than releasing another supplement in a long line of supplements. I'm sure FFG took this into account too, but I don't think it would be fair to characterize FFG's decision as exploitative, at least not yet.

deinol said:

Wow. What an amazingly inaccurate account of White Wolf's publishing history.

macd21 said:

Actually, it's pretty true. White Wolf haven't published nearly as much for nWoD as they have for oWoD, and I'm a big fan of nWoD (I hated the oWoD setting for most of the supernatural races). oWoD is just, generally, a lot more popular, and made a lot more money for the company than nWoD did, which is likely why their release schedule has become dribbles, with a book coming out every few months, Mage and Werewolf being cancelled, and them going to a Print-on-Demand system rather than publishing books in print-runs, along with the majority of the White Wolf guys now solely assigned to the WoD MMO (which is based on the oWoD, not nWoD).

macd21 said:

Fair enough on the first point. The second, it also mean they could have made less money with the 1 core + game lines, we'll probably never know as the change in distribution was perhaps the least controversial part of the jump from old to new World of Darkness. Though technically the fact that WW could get away with the oWoD distribution method for thirteen whooping years should be all the evidence the old method needs. Even for a company that provides a staple product or service like food or healthcare, thirteen years is a long time to stick to one way and not have someone in the marketing department go "hey, we could be making more money doing things this way." For a nonessential item like PnP RPGs, it must be a perfectly viable method as it seems most publishing studios don't even get to see their tenth birthday let alone have a product line that still makes money after 13+ years and at least three seperate editions to my knowledge.

As for your third point, actually yes it is. The fact that they rewrote most of the lore does not change that it's still World of Darkness and still owes something to its predecessors. The system old players remember is still essentially there, the core themes of WW's particular brand of urban fantasy are still there despite this new emphasis on internal political bickering in most of the new WoD games, and there were two versions of World of Darkness before it unless I'm mistaken and the number of predecessors is higher.

Finally, the fact that we are all still having this conversation despite that it is actually rather moot is perhaps another reason why these boards really need mods and community managers. The 40k license essentially allows FFG to print money no matter how they chose to distribute it. Whether Black Crusade is it's own game or not, I'm sure enough of us are going to want to buy it to make it a success. Therefore, the question is not whether this system is good for FFG, but whether it is good for US. And to that... really the only people who lose out with this method are the ones who buy each and every core rulebook and every player's handbook. People who pick and chose depending on what interests them the most don't really lose out that much and groups where each player is interested in a different aspect actually benefit from reprinting the rules as this cuts down on the time and makes it easier for GMs to encourage players to pick up their own copies of the rules. I know in my group there will be someone likely interested in Deathwatch, another in Dark Heresy, and at my last session I had someone ask if there were any rules for Eldar characters. That's three copies of the skill descriptions, combat rules, and general gameplay mechanics I don't have to pass around even if they aren't copies of Rogue Trader. And if they're pulled away from 4th edition D&D and experience something ELSE, I can't really say I would be all that displeased with that development regardless of how it comes about.

MILLANDSON said:

No, still not an accurate picture of WW's history.

White Wolf shifted from oWoD to nWoD because of the failing sales of the oWoD. The nWoD wasn't the cause of a loss of sales, it was an attempted (and successful) cure. Sales increased again and were very healthy for a while. But it was only a temporary cure. The RPG market has vastly changed from the 90s and couldn't support the kinds of sales figures that WotC wanted for much longer. They recognised the writing on the wall and made the jump to alternate distribution methods. WotC are attempting to do something similar, though they are keeping their print distribution up and running (for now).

nWoD has never had the sales figures of oWoD however, as oWoD has always been the more popular of the two, probably down to who likes having some metaplot and who doesn't. Don't get me wrong, I drastically prefer nWoD to oWoD, but I fully admit it's not been as successful as oWoD in terms of finances.

And Wizards can really do whatever they want, as they're owned by Hasbro who has enough money to shovel in to it, even if it should turn in to a hole. As trends could change to the point where they can make up for any loss of previous years.

The D&D IP is something that any company with that much money should want to hold on to, if it has any common sense . At least until pen and paper RPG's die completely and permanently, which is a day I hope I never live to see.

Since my account of White Wolf's decline came into question, I will restate it. I admit that before I mixed facts with conjecture and my own opinions a little too freely.

Wow, I didn't realize how bad it had gotten. There are two releases scheduled on WW's "Future Releases" page, both in the October-December section. One for Mage, one for Exalted. I miss you WW.

Sorry, but many of your 'facts' are nothing of the kind and you are ignoring plenty of other ones. For example: the market has changed. nWoD sales may never have equalled that of oWoD at its height, but the market has shrunk dramatically since then and the FLGS distribution system has collapsed. White Wolf's market share remained roughly the same througout.

Or how about the fact that oWoD sales had collapsed towards the end of its existence? The nWoD may have alienated old fans, but those fans weren't buying enough new material to matter and were more than offset by the fans of the new game. Yes, the MMO will be based on the oWoD, but that's because the setting is more suited to an MMO than the nWoD, not because it is inherantly more popular.

White Wolf is changing its publishing strategy, but that's not because the nWoD is a failure. Far from it. But the market has changed dramatically since the oWoD. White Wolf would reinvigorate sales of the oWoD with a new edition every few years (Vampire had three over its 13 years). nWoD is still on its first. Normally they would have released a new edition by now. But WW don't believe the current market is strong enough to support the kinds of sales that they consider worthwhile.

The oWoD was very popular and was one of the big RPGs of its time, with about a quarter of the market. The nWoD was very popular and was one of the big RPGs of its time, with about a quarter of the market. But times have changed. The RPG market has changed.