I want to start by saying I’m not just trying to go off on GW. To begin, I am NOT going to bring prices into this discussion. There are enough places here where that topic is being beaten like Gollum’s next meal…including by me. Additionally, I think their SBG game is one of the best representations of a skirmish scale game that captures the flavor of the source material. I think their WotR version (though missing the Tolkien mark on a few key points IMO) is a fun large-scale game. For the most part their models are really nice and the customer service I experienced the one time I had to ask for a replacement was fantastic. With that all out of the way, I just came across something that exemplifies so well how far GW could come in interacting with and respecting the value of their customers as something more than just a revenue source.

The only other wargame I currently play actively is Flames of War, by Battlefront. It’s a WWII historical game that operates at the squad level. It has, IMO, easy to grasp rules that still do a very good job of presenting a variety of tactical options and provides a fun game that feels right for what it is. Some of our local players are very big into it, but they are likewise very big into several other historicals. What drew me to FoW included the quality of the models, reasonable costs and quick and fun rule system. But what nailed me was their close interaction and respect for their customers.

Though there are other forums out there, BF run their own FoW forum which is very active. You will even find the game developers themselves on the site. As the site is run by them on their own servers, they do ask that you do not discuss competitive products on the forums, but this is balanced out by their flexibility in competitive products at tournaments and official events. They have no issue with point and list details being discussed on their forum. They are comfortable that their books will still sell despite that and the number of army builders out there. And they are right because they produce quality books at a reasonable cost. On their website they even offer downloadable PDFs that you can use to build some official armies without even needing to buy sourcebooks.

But here’s the kicker. They actually ASK and LISTEN to their customers when it comes to rule issues. Unlike GW’s black box method of sending an email in and never being sure if it’s been looked at, if they will make a decision, will you get an email or have to wait until the next FAQ (which could be a YEAR) to know. This is proactive and appreciative contact. Here is the one that just made my head explode with frustration at GW’s methods.

With the latest incarnation of the rules and some new updates a particular type of force (“Tank Destroyers”) have been criticized as being over powered and open to abuse. This conversation has been going on in the forums for a while now and some BF staff have come in now and then to clarify and express their thoughts. It did seem that some of the ‘creative’ ways players choose to work the rules was not intended. The company not only is proposing some changes, but they are asking the general gaming community at large to test out the options and report back. They want to find what works in the real world, not just their secret core of play testers, and they want to be sure their customers are part of the solution. I have seen this level of engagement from only one other game company personally and it is this that creates the loyalty to a company. You feel, as a player of Flames of War that you are part of a larger, appreciated community and not just a revenue source.

Here’s the start of their post on their website. Would you ever expect something this open and engaging from GW? How would it change your impression of the company and willingness to buy their products if they did treat you like this?

The new Tank Destroyers special rules in Version 3 seem to have some loopholes that have allowed players to do things that weren’t intended when we wrote them. After reading hundreds of pages of discussion on the forum (it’s good to know our players are so passionate!), we have come up with a few things that we are considering as possible solutions to the problems. In line with my previous thoughts on the matter, the changes we are suggesting won’t result in a radical change in the way that tank destroyers operate. Hopefully, what they will do is close some of the loopholes that have been creating the frustration and unhappiness that has been clearly expressed on the forum.

We are looking for feedback on these ideas, so try them out and let us know how they work out for you.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

Agreed. In everything, form not allowing other companies models into conversions to not even FAQ'ing things like Khamul in WotR, GW shows they don't really care about what people think about them, so long as they buy. Which we will, because they have the only proper LotR minatures.

_________________
"... Telchar wrought it in the deeps of time."
-On Andùril, The Lord of the Rings

Perhaps you should send this to someone at GW, namely Jervis Johnson who supposedly reads all his mails. Would be interesting if he addresses the issue in his white dwarf colum or whether it's just glossed over like we expect it will be, but it is definitely worth a try. If david slayed Goliath, then maybe, just maybe Beowulf can alter GW's thinking

_________________
Veritas Vos Liberabit

No they don't. They simply have the only ones based on the movies. Mithril Miniatures still have an active website with many, many minis on it.

_________________
Gondor: 2339pts
Rohan: 1318pts
Dwarves: 2482pts
Elves: 1091pts
Mordor: 2305pts
Isengard: 1762pts
Moria: 1463pts
Evil Men: 381pts

If you want to see responses to customer/potential customer demands, have a snoop around Kickstarter - many of the successful campaigns have taken on board a lot of customer ideas and some of the pledgers have ended up becoming characters in the games they backed - not just because of investing more money but in at least 2 cases I am aware of, because the people concerned were very active and helpful on the Kickstarter.
I have an interest in FOW though most of my minis for that 15mm/1:100 scale are not Battlefront, but the books are - they are very thorough.

_________________
Published ebooks:
Instrument of the Empire
A Note of Defiance
Phantom Ships, Ghost Flotilla
More to come!

Didn't GW do this when the forums were still operational around 2006? I agree with you. Although what I think is the most important is that stats should be on the website for free. This is to stop people from having to buy 2 or 3 books just for one army which is ridiculous.

Well, I personally dislike allmost all of the Mithril miniatures, so they're a no for me. It's all taste, I suppose.



Probably, yes. The problem is the forums are gone and they don't read OR or TLA.

_________________
"... Telchar wrought it in the deeps of time."
-On Andùril, The Lord of the Rings

They most definitely do. When that radagast model got leaked O-R got asked to remove it. But yes, as far as I know they don't regularly read O-R or TLA.

Considering the issues that have arisen with leaked information, posted points, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if they have a small group of trolls that monitor the forums anonymously. More likely though some spiders crawling all the popular forums for all their games looking for trigger data.

But that's hardly reflective of "customer service" (unless your customers like squealing like stuck pigs).

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

Actually there are many GW staff who read these forums. Not many from games development but others who then pass on notes.
There are also friends of games dev who read these forums and pass on comments to the appropriate people.

GW is a bigger company than FoW and is a company run in a way which it seems "tries to not make money". I don't know the truth here but when FoW is appealing to more people it might not want to have forums to police and people expecting answers of a games dev team trying to keep 3 systems up to date.

I meant read and pay real attention to the complaints. I mean, how many "Rohan should be improved" threads are there? And has GW improved Rohan? Nope.

_________________
"... Telchar wrought it in the deeps of time."
-On Andùril, The Lord of the Rings

Indeed. Their 'reading' is really just trolling to make sure nothing is being done that they don't like.

And I'm sure the discussions back in HQ include:

"Yeah...everyone's complaining about the prices, but it looks like most are still buying something. So we can probably even increase prices a little more."

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

interesting to see FoW being used as the guide for how to do things.

In my experience, FoW and Battlefront hasn't enjoyed the best of reputations amongst many historical gamers. At least nothing near that enjoyed by Warlord, Great Escape etc. Moreover very few outside its inner core of players would seriously consider it a simulation of company level operations in the mid twentieth century.

FoW has traditionally suffered from all the problems of codex cheap for which GW is infamous, and, lacking opportunity fire, allowed armour to drive straight through an Anti Tank matrix unengaged.

Still maybe they've worked out that their business model was unsustainable as was and things have changed for the better. I'm sure the competition from Kampfgroup Normandy et al didn't do any harm on that front

_________________
http://jannersjaunt.blogspot.dk

Competition is always a great thing...something GW lacks IMO. There is only one license for LotR wargaming and they hold it. Kinda hard to IP historicals though.

I have only been playing FoW for a couple years now but haven't seen codex creep issues at all so far. There's the simple fact that things really did improve for the most part as time went by, so even forces that deployed 6 months later than others may show improvements or even a weakening of forces. It's not as visible in Early and Mid-War but really starts to show in Late War, especially post-Normandy. And the latest version of the rules cleaned up a few game play issues I had seen.

But at no point does FoW try to present themselves as a 'serious simulation' of WWII. It's a game with WWII flavor just as SBG is a game with Middle-Earth flavor. SBG simplifies a lot of things for playability purposes to keep things fun and moving along while catching the flavor of the subject. FoW is much the same.

But with all that aside I was not discussing the game systems themselves. I was pointing out how open the FoW developers are to their community compared to GW. Their developers can be found on their forum active in discussions where GW's 'rule question' process is a black-box email from which you may never hear anything. They are open to players using competitors models even at their official tournaments (just restricted from painting/army competitions and official photos) vs. the draconian stance of GW on such things. And I have seen a few times (like the one that spurred this message) where Battlefront has actively reached out to their player base at large regarding THE PLAYER's opinion on rule options BEFORE making something official.

So not saying "FoW is the ultimate WWII wargame!". Just saying Battlefront is a far more open and engaged development company than GW, which promotes players (at least our local ones) to be willing to play their game, buy their products and promote to others.

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com

It was very different when I dipped my tie into the FoW pool about 6 years ago, and they certainly weren't so keen on player input. By codex creep I wasn't referring to historical developments, but when each in-period new book outmatched existing ones and had new 'must buy' units.

Anyway, glad to hear that things are different now

Kind regards

_________________
http://jannersjaunt.blogspot.dk

Part of the problem is the peculiar corporate culture, and the peculiar customer culture they attempt to foster.

"GW is the best thing ever. Indeed, GW is the only thing ever." They rely on a solid, vocal core of fans who will be enthused about most releases, and who will tie this enthusiam into identity, for a while. Furthermore, that core is in constant flux. People buy in, become enthused and then burn out. But its always expected that someone else will come along.

As a result, there's no real reason to offer improvements, or respond to feedback. They do these things, but its not a part of a long term strategy, but rather a maintainance strategy to keep the core pleased as it journeys through the system.

One thing that has changed is the assumption of a climbing age of customers. GW's probably burnt out a lot of nag-power customers (ie, parents paying for things for their 12 year olds), and instead is relying heavier on older collectors who can afford some heinous amount of money for a finecast foot-and-mounted blister.

They just assume that identity-hobbyist core who ate "true believers" will continue to support them (so no rules FAQs and price increases are because of "superior quality"), and the older gamers will probably adapt things for themselves.

There's an odd parallel with Paizo publishing in the US, who make the Pathfinder roleplaying game. They managed to get a lot of their core-hobbyists to fork out a whole pile of cash to fund a MMO. Crucially, a lot of the cash came from a relatively small number of true believers who gave a lot of cash (even while discussing how much financial hardship this would cause them) because of that identity issue.

The problem with this is that if you ride the true believers hard enough, they'll turn on you. GW relies on more true believers coming along, but what if the betrayed true believers are sufficiently vocal and upset enough to dent the next generation's numbers? Can the older gamers who can afford the inevitable reliance keep supporting the company?

I suspect not, not in the longer run. Not that it really matters, but eventually something has to give way.

_________________
Dreaming of getting back to painting...any month now.