Re: [NetEpic ML] A Rant and a City...

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 19:01:33 -0400

Hi!

Great site Stephane, I enjoyed it thoroughly!

The topic of epic and GW mistreatment of it is one I have indulged in a
lot on other forums I frequent.

I agree that epic has now future while GW tries to keep it as part of
the "main studio".

For those of us who have been around GW for a long time, we know that
company wants all its fans playing 40k or fantasy (I doubt LoTR's will
last long....). All its marketing, resource allocation and effort points
to this.

Fanatic was only a good idea if it were indeed autonomous. That fallacy
was proved conclusively and bluntly. If such a company, could exist,
then such games could florish. But given that the whole of Fanatic games
produces about 5% of GW income (according to Jervis), its abvious that
GW will give it little thought.

Compare that to second edition space marine/Titan Legions sales of 7-10%
in the US (circa 1995). The enormity of how far epic has fallen is
staggering.

The funny thing is that Netepic, as a community project, actually grows
with such adversity. Why depend on GW for rules and miniature lines that
never materialize? Netepic provides some welcome constancy and
continuity that not even GW provides.

As a side not, real life has Jar and myself pretty tied up, but some
time will come soon and we hope to push 5.0 to a conclusion. Given
Fanatic practical demise, Netepic's role becomes critical.

Peter

cibernyam wrote:

>I must say the article is very good but the ruined city lacks... more detail
>fotos! :-P
>
>I'd like to point out something from the analysis of the issue with
>'spin-off' games. I still can't understand how and when GW had the idea that
>SM 2nd and Blood Bowl (not to say Necromunda or Talisman or Heroquest or
>..) were in the same category. Whereas the funny football game had a truly
>limited commercial life (You can hardly strip more money from customers
>after the 20th miniature of your team, at least if you only play one team),
>the epic game had a real potential to reach the level of WH40k if properly
>promoted.
>
>I suppose they wanted to complement both games to avoid concurring against
>themselves. But the fact is that most Epic players just quitted WH40k after
>some time and stay solely with SM, thus pointing GW wrong choice. I suppose
>they just prefered to kill SM 2nd Ed rather than risking to promote it.
>Wether this second option could have worked out in good terms for them is
>something we'll never known.
>
>9 months ago(16/05 ), relating to the price change in GWUS I posted:
>
>
>>>Indeed, I think this is the grace shot to GW epic line (a.k.a. "let's
>>>
>>>
>make the most of the money out of this before we close it").
>
>Thus, I reaffirm myself: my conclusion is that any possible 'rebirth' of
>Epic through GW is completely impossible. The opportunity was lost long ago
>with the death of SM 2nd Ed. I can only expect "take the money and run"
>politics as in Epic 40k or E:A. A whole new system with different detachment
>composition, some new inconsistent miniatures, a redesign of someold
>miniatures (packed -and priced- according to new game) or simply and
>blatantly sell the same old miniatures priced two or three times (A Reaver
>is a Reaver costing 9$ or 30$)
>
>We are alone in the universe...
>
>Albert
>
>
Received on Tue Feb 08 2005 - 23:01:33 UTC